Hi Trent, Am Montag, den 08.06.2009, 17:13 +1000 schrieb Trent W. Buck: > Currently I'm looking at haskell-html and seeing it can't be installed > with 6.10.3. If I've understood the posts on this list correctly, > > - such problems go away after a binNMU or an NMU; > - someone is slowly working their way through all such packages; and > - they can't all be done at once due to interdependencies. > > This being the case, how can I track the progress package fixes? > > Currently the only visibility I have is when the fixed packages actually > hit Sid -- I'd like to know before then whether I have days, weeks or > months to wait for a particular package to be usable again. In the > latter cases, I can prepare my own packages for internal use. not that I can add much to your mail, but I did not want to see it unanswered. It is correct that in most cases, a binNMU would fix the problem. Kaol did fix most packages, and is still working on the others, as far as I know. Theoretically, all packages could be scheduled the same time as binNMUs, when carefully setting the DepWaits, just as kaol has done with this mail: http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2009/05/msg00157.html There are exceptions with packages that need a sourceful upload: They need to be uploaded when their dependencies have been built as binNMUs, and only then you can schedule their reverse dependencies. There are also exceptions like haskell-network, where kaol has chosen to upload a new upstream version first, but needs to wait for haskell-parsec2 to leave NEW – not much that we can do about that. Some packages seem have have been missed by kaol, for example these http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2009/05/msg00227.html For other packages (for example hdbc-odbc by jgoerzen), it seems that a binNMU could be scheduled. I also notified jgoerzen about this, offering to schedule a binNMU for him, but he has not yet replied. (Actually, I just noticed that the hdbc binNMU was scheduled by kaol, but hdbc-odbc not. I guess that was just missed and I can request that now.) It seems to be obvious that there still a great lack of consistent procedure here. Kaol, for your initial binNMU request, did you create that by hand or do you already have a script for that? I think we would really benefit from a central web page that shows these informations for all haskell packages: * Source version in archive * Binary versions in archive * State of the wanna-build data base (e.g., is a binNMU scheduled) * Can the package be installed? * Can the build-depenencies be satisfied? * Bonus: New upstream versions * Anything else? It should be able to output correct binNMU request lines to get us in shape. Some information can probably be gathered from qa.debian.org, e.g. the debcheck output. Anyone up for some hacking? I might give it a shot, but not before DebConf. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil