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

Bug#893418: marked as done (Corrupted package names in by_vote.gz)

Your message dated Sun, 7 Jul 2019 18:57:20 +0200
with message-id <20190707165720.op5aanb7f4u6tta2@yellowpig>
and subject line Re: Bug#893418: Corrupted package names in by_vote.gz
has caused the Debian Bug report #893418,
regarding Corrupted package names in by_vote.gz
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
893418: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=893418
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
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?


Enrico

-- System Information:
Debian Release: buster/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 4.14.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_IE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_IE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_IE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Versions of packages popularity-contest depends on:
ii  debconf [debconf-2.0]  1.5.66
ii  dpkg                   1.19.0.5

Versions of packages popularity-contest recommends:
ii  cron [cron-daemon]              3.0pl1-130
ii  gnupg                           2.2.5-1
ii  postfix [mail-transport-agent]  3.3.0-1

Versions of packages popularity-contest suggests:
ii  anacron  2.3-24

-- debconf information:
  popularity-contest/submiturls:
* popularity-contest/participate: true

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 06:53:00PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 04:18:28PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 03:35:01PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 02:24:39PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 02:10:07PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > Probably. Is the format of that file documented somewhere?
> > > > > This is a list of key/value pair in RFC822 style.
> > > > > See /usr/share/doc/popularity-contest/examples/bin/README.examples
> > > > > for the format of the Package line.
> > > > 
> > > > I have a few questions:
> > > > 
> > > > How is the package name separated from the integer fields? It does not
> > > > look like a fixed-width field:
> > > > 
> > > > Package: abev-form-obhgepi-fpk-nav          0     0     0     2
> > > > Package: abev-form-obhgepi-fpk-nav-egyeb     0     0     0     2
> > > > 
> > > > If it is instead space-separated, currently I didn't see package names
> > > > that contained spaces, but is there a guarantee that the package name
> > > > won't contain spaces?
> > > 
> > > It is garanteed that package name will not contain spaces.
> > > 
> > > > Alternatively, should the parsing instead be done by splitting on \s+
> > > > from the right with a maximum of 4 splits?
> > > > 
> > > > Some package names seem to be truncated, like this one:
> > > > 
> > > > Package: apache-openoffice-4.1.4-linux-x86-install-rpm-de     0     0     0     1
> > > 
> > > The server should not truncate anything. I will check what happened.
> > 
> > The package name is truncated in the submitter report already.
> > Maybe dpkg-query truncated it, maybe it was truncated even before.
> 
> In fact there is no truncation: -de is the language code for german!
> <https://www.openoffice.org/de/download/>
> 
> Apparently a number of non-official packages use the character _ in their
> name.
> 
> I have fixed the corruptions caused by truncated reports.
> 
> Do you still see corrupted entries?

Since buster is released, I close this report.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here.

--- End Message ---
Reply to: