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

Bug#725034: marked as done ([UDD]: key-packages not taking INC_SRC dependencies into account)

Your message dated Sat, 5 Oct 2013 22:40:24 +0200
with message-id <20131005204022.GA25084@ugent.be>
and subject line Re: [UDD]: key-packages not taking INC_SRC dependencies into account
has caused the Debian Bug report #725034,
regarding [UDD]: key-packages not taking INC_SRC dependencies into account
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.)


-- 
725034: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=725034
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: normal

Hi,

By the looks of it, the script generating the list of key packages are
not taken the dependencies (i.e. (Pre-)Depends) of key packages into
account.  For the majority of packages, their (Pre-)Depends are always
covered by their popcon[1].
  However, packages listed in INC_SRC may not (and usually doesn't)
have a popcon of 5% so their dependencies cannot be assumed to
included via popcon score.

Note that Britney has a safe-guard, so this cannot cause a package
with reverse dependencies to be removed.  However, it may cause
false-positives to appear in the list of auto-removals.

~Niels

[1] The popcon of any package is at least the same as the popcon of
its must installed reverse dependency.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi Niels,

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 08:53:30PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> By the looks of it, the script generating the list of key packages are
> not taken the dependencies (i.e. (Pre-)Depends) of key packages into
> account.  For the majority of packages, their (Pre-)Depends are always
> covered by their popcon[1].
>   However, packages listed in INC_SRC may not (and usually doesn't)
> have a popcon of 5% so their dependencies cannot be assumed to
> included via popcon score.

This should now be fixed.

It seems there were also other dependencies which were not covered by popcon.

> Note that Britney has a safe-guard, so this cannot cause a package
> with reverse dependencies to be removed.  However, it may cause
> false-positives to appear in the list of auto-removals.

The testing-autoremovals script currently does not remove any package with a
reverse (build-)dependency in testing, so the britney safe-guard should not be
needed, but with this fix, the set of key packages should be self-contained.

> [1] The popcon of any package is at least the same as the popcon of
> its must installed reverse dependency.

When a package with high popcon has a dependency which can be satisfied by
multiple packages, the popcon of the dependencies can be lower than the popcon
of the original package.

Cheers,

Ivo

--- End Message ---
Reply to: