Re: unclaiming packages claimed for 3 weeks or more (Re: november report)
On 2018-11-20 16:17:57, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So I ran it asking it to unclaim packages which didnt see activity in
> dla-needed.txt for more than 3 weeks. These are the results from running
> ./bin/review-update-needed --lts --unclaim 1814400
[...]
> -linux (Ben Hutchings)
> +linux
> and
> -linux-4.9 (Ben Hutchings)
> +linux
> (here I think I would like to be able to whitelist this as Ben currently
> always takes these packages.)
Right. That's the one I had in mind as well. :)
So how *do* we make that "whitelist"? Commandline param? And what will
it list? Packages? People? Package/people combination?
Before you answer, consider that all entries are manually maintained and
I sometimes write my name "Antoine Beaupre", "Antoine Beaupré" or
"anarcat" depending on what I remember I used last, and that last time
we dealt we accents, the script crashed. :p
> -nsis (Thorsten Alteholz)
> +nsis
> last NOTE: 20181110: waiting for email answer
> so here the script is buggy, this should not have been unclaimed!
>
> -openjpeg2 (Hugo Lefeuvre)
> +openjpeg2
> last NOTE: *doesnt have a date to it*
> still there is last-update in the output and it says "Last-Update: 2018-11-19 19:02"
> so I believe the script is buggy.
>
> -qemu (Santiago)
> +qemu
> NOTE: 20181026: no fix yet for recent dsa issues, but start working on
> NOTE: pending no-dsa issues
> Technically correctly unclaimed (as last edit was 26 days ago), however
> given the notes I think this should stay as it is.
>
> -symfony (Thorsten Alteholz)
> +symfony
> NOTE: 20181110: patches ready, struggling with test suite, waiting for email
> another bug in the script, this should not have been unclaimed.
>
> Conclusion: the script has potential but is still too buggy ;)
Yep. Silly me, I only looked at claimed-date and not "last-update".
I pushed this fix and the output changes to implement the things we
discussed. Hopefully it will help us move forward. :) I bypassed the MR
process as indicated in private: I am going under the assertion that the
secteam is not using this script anyways and we shouldn't bother them
with our administrativia any further.
The only thing that remains unclear to me is the opt-out mechanisms. I
believe everyone should be "opted in" by default and we can add
exceptions. The only question is how. I can think of two ways:
1. manually: the operator (or cronjob) passes a list of "things" to the
script that then get ignored
2. automatically: the script reads "things" from a file next to or
close to the dla-needed file
We also need to figure out what the "things" are (package, owner, or
package-owner tuple), as I mentioned above.
Thanks!
A.
--
Modern man has a kind of poverty of the spirit which stands
in great contrast to his remarkable scientific and technological
achievements. We've learned to walk in outer space and yet we
haven't learned to walk to earth as brothers and sisters.
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Reply to: