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

WNPP bugs maintenance

Hi all,

For a couple of days now I've been running a script [1] that reports 
inconsistencies in the wnpp pseudo package.

I guess there are other similar scripts out there because I've seen people 
doing some maintenance time by time. So any ideas, suggestions, etc are 

I'm currently running it via a cronjob every "four hours" (I don't keep my pc 
online all day, so it is only whenever cron thinks it is time to do it).

Those interested in running it, at least to test it, only need the bts command 
(whatever version implemented the 'select' and 'status' commands).

It reports (by generating commands for control@bugs.d.o that only need to be 
tweaked or verified):

1. Bugs with a subject which doesn't match the current format.
2. (disabled) ITPs (or RFPs if you also add it to the regex) with a 
description longer than 80 characters.[2]
3. Two or more bugs affecting the same package but are not merged together.
4. Bugs (except RFHs, although I have no idea what would the meaning of the 
tag be in that case) tagged as pending but with no activity in the last six 
5. ITA/ITPs with no owner.
6. RFA/RFP/RFH/O with owner.
7. ITP/RFPs with severity other than wishlist.
8. RFA/RFH/ITA/O with severity wishlist.

Checks 5 to 8 are only performed if the bug is not tagged as pending or if 4 
does something.

Please take *special look* at check 4 and [3].

[2] There are so many bugs which match this check, but since I didn't know 
very well how to handle them I decided to better disable it.

[3] I have though about making one month the default max time, additionally 
fetching ftp-master.d.o/new.html to determine the age of the oldest package 
in there and set that as the max age if it is greater than the default. No 

P.S. I left some bugs that need a severity change, just to make sure something 
is displayed when run.

Raphael Geissert - Debian Maintainer
www.debian.org - get.debian.net

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: