Re: where to leave info about "bad packages" (in the bapase sense)
On 02/12/09 at 13:08 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Hi all,
> during my routine NMUs, I often stumble upon potential "bad" packages
> (in the same sense of "bad" used by "bapase" [1]). Some times I ask for
> their removal, sometimes they seem to me borderline, so I just NMU them.
>
> In the latter case however, I've performed some review work about the
> appropriateness of removing in the future the package from the archive,
> unless something very good happens (e.g. the maintainer come back to
> life, or something such). I think it is a waste to have my review work
> and my possible notices lost, since someone else will in the future
> probably do the same again when stumbling over that package.
>
> So, question, do we have a place where to store notices about packages
> we think can be potentially removed from the archive?
>
> A common medium used for that are the comments in the bts.turmzimmer
> service, by they are shown only if the package has at least one open RC
> bug. I think we could use something QA-centered, that can in the future
> help periodic round of removal request by QA (which is a related topic
> I'll probably raise in the near future).
>
> Would it make sense to complement bapase with a very simple note taking
> system that will create a database of human-provided "bad" notes about a
> given package?
Bapase uses a file for that (package-actions.txt, in collab-qa/bapase/). Example:
gutenbrowser 2007-06-20 lucas PROP_RM(429795)
gutenbrowser 2007-10-12 lucas WAIT(30)
gutenbrowser 2007-11-29 lucas WAIT(15) maintainer responsive, but big issues.
gutenbrowser 2007-12-18 lucas WAIT(50) working version with Qt4 in the works. Let's wait.
gutenbrowser 2008-04-04 lucas WAIT(20) pinged pere in #429795
gutenbrowser 2008-08-07 djpig WAIT(30) new upstream uploaded, but not migrated yet
gutenbrowser 2008-09-17 djpig OK might not make it into lenny, but still ok from our PoV
The PROP_RM(), WAIT() and OK are parsed to generate the status of the
package in bapase. We could add LOOKS_SUSPICIOUS or something, to report
packages that need action.
I'm of course open to moving the file elsewhere. I would prefer
"elsewhere" not to be a wiki, though.
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Reply to: