Bug#893418: Corrupted package names in by_vote.gz
On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 07:17:17PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
> Package: popularity-contest
> Version: 1.66
> Severity: normal
>
> Hello,
>
> thanks for maintaining popcon. This seems related to #833695:
>
> $ curl -s https://popcon.debian.org/by_vote.gz | zgrep -e ' li[^b-z]'
> 53022 liana-zabbix 1 1 0 0 0 (Not in sid)
> 95984 li 1 0 0 0 1 (Not in sid)
> 95985 li-apt-source 2 0 0 0 2 (Not in sid)
> 95986 li-duply-dhbackup 1 0 1 0 0 (Not in sid)
> 95987 li0 1 0 0 0 1 (Not in sid)
> 95988 li0SsjEPOPULARITY-CONTEST-0 1 0 0 0 1 (Not in sid)
> 95989 li0Suiimanaenns5 1 0 0 0 1 (Not in sid)
> 95991 li5yolibpolkit-qt5-1-1 1 0 0 0 1 (Not in sid)
> 95992 li<NOFbfn 1 0 0 0 1 (Not in sid)
> 95993 liLES><NOFILv-peznab3n 1 0 0 0 1 (Not in sid)
> 95994 liLES>a.0 1 0 0 0 1 (Not in sid)
> 95995 lia-plCki 1 0 0 0 1 (Not in sid)
> 95996 liaaloader0d 1 0 0 0 1 (Not in sid)
> Would it be possible to discard server-side any package whose name is
> not compliant with policy?
Possible, yes. However:
1) Name like li0SsjEPOPULARITY-CONTEST-0 is compliant with policy but is
certainly due to corruption.
2) Users might have packages with names that are not compliant with
policy and we should know about them.
So I do not think the server should do it blindly. It is probably better
to do it client-side.
On the other hand, I am all for avoiding corruption in the first place,
but with the level of traffic it is difficult.
In any case I have just removed a common cause of corruption
(unterminated reports).
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: