[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: feedback on review-update-needed --lts --unclaim (Re: november report)



On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 11:25:52AM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> > However no changes were made.
> 
> Yeah, that's a total, typical, python unicode crash. :p Could you give
> me more information on your locale? It looks like you don't have a UTF-8
> locale, which will, naturally, cause problems when trying to display
> non-ASCII characters in Python. There are workarounds for this, but I'm
> not sure we should go through that trouble considering we control that
> environment pretty well and it's fair to assume utf8...
 
my stretch environment used for this:

debian-work:~$ export
[...]
declare -x LANG="de_DE.UTF-8"
[...]
debian-work:~$ dpkg -l|grep locale
[...]
ii  locales                              2.24-11+deb9u3                           all          GNU C Library: National Language (locale) data [support]
ii  locales-all                          2.24-11+deb9u3                           amd64        GNU C Library: Precompiled locale data
ii  python-apt-common                    1.4.0~beta3                              all          Python interface to libapt-pkg (locales)
debian-work:~$ 

same for my sid schroot:

sid  debian-work:~$ export
[...]
declare -x LANG="de_DE.UTF-8"
[...]
sid  debian-work:~$ dpkg -l |grep locale
[...]
ii  python-apt-common                  1.7.0                        all          Python interface to libapt-pkg (locales)
sid  debian-work:~$


> > Fourth, the order of entries in the output and in data/dla-needed.txt is
> > different, which is confusing and makes it harder to find entries, could
> > that be fixed?
> 
> the list is sorted according to the `--sort-by`. We could add a
> "unsorted" argument to that (or make that the default). What do you
> prefer?

If the unsorted order is the same as the one in data/dla-needed.txt I'd want that.
 
> > Fifth, if a package is unclaimed, it would be good to include this in
> > the package related output (and not just in the summary in the end), so 
> > instead of for example:
> >
> > Package: icecast2
> > Claimed-By: Abhijith PA
> > Claimed-Date: 2018-11-04 11:25 (16 days ago)
> > Last-Update: 2018-11-06 09:46 (14 days ago)
> >
> > it would be nicer if the output were
> >
> > Package: icecast2
> > Claimed-By: Abhijith PA
> > Claimed-Date: 2018-11-04 11:25 (16 days ago)
> > Last-Update: 2018-11-06 09:46 (14 days ago)
> > Unclaimed because last update was more than $timespan ago.
> 
> That's totally doable though. How does that look for you?
> 
> diff --git i/bin/review-update-needed w/bin/review-update-needed
> index 976c0e9c82..fe4103b0d1 100755
> --- i/bin/review-update-needed
> +++ w/bin/review-update-needed
> @@ -133,6 +133,7 @@ for entry in all_entries:
>              date_to_format = datetime.utcfromtimestamp(entry['claimed-date'])
>              if datetime.utcnow() - date_to_format > unclaim_delta:
>                  unclaim_pkgs.append(entry['pkg'])
> +                args.quiet or print("Unclaimed: idle for more than {}: {}".format(unclaim_delta, datetime.utcnow() - date_to_format))
>      else:
>          args.quiet or print("Unclaimed-Since: {}".format(format_date(entry['claimed-date'])))
>      if entry['last-update'] > entry['claimed-date']:
> @@ -149,7 +150,7 @@ for entry in all_entries:
>          print("")
>  
>  if args.unclaim:
> -    args.quiet or print("Packages to unclaim: {}".format(", ".join(unclaim_pkgs)))
> +    args.quiet or print("Editing file to unclaim: {}".format(", ".join(unclaim_pkgs)))
>      in_preamble = True
>      with open(dsa_dla_needed) as orig, open(dsa_dla_needed + '.new', 'w') as new:
>          for line in orig:

looks good, thanks! maybe: s#Editing#Edited# ?

> > Six, I ran "./bin/review-update-needed --lts --unclaim 1814400" on
> > stretch and got useful output which I will summarize in another mail,
> > so that we have one thread about improving the tool and another about
> > unclaiming specific packages.
> 
> Awesome.

:) will try your latest version next monday (as briefly discussed on irc 
I plan to run this script every Monday for now..)

> I'm surprised you're not getting the unicode error there though. Maybe
> it's because UTF-8 locales are not setup in the schroot?

judging from the above quoted output I'd say so.

Thanks for all your work on this!


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
       PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: