Hello Guillem, Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> (2014-08-22): > Hi! > > I was mightily confused when I saw that supposedly dpkg 1.17.12, which > had an RC bug filed and had not spent enough time to transition had > “migrated” [M], w/o any sign of MIGRATION mail, nor any release team > hint directive. > > This is what rmadison has to say about this: > > ,--- > dpkg | 1.17.10 | jessie | source, amd64, armel, armhf, i386, > kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, > powerpc, s390x > dpkg | 1.17.13 | sid | source, amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, hurd-i386, > i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, > mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x, sparc > `--- > > The Sources for jessie do contain both versions, 1.17.10 and 1.17.12 > with an Extra-Source-Only:yes field, due to at least deets and the > recently introduced Built-Using in debsig-verify. whether it was correct to let these packages migrate without dpkg 1.17.12 migrating at the same time is a question I have no answer to. > The following are probably issues with the QA codebase, it lists as > migrated when that's not true: > > (thinks that testing is 1.17.12) > <https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=guillem> [M] > <https://packages.qa.debian.org/d/dpkg.html> > <https://packages.debian.org/search?searchon=sourcenames&keywords=dpkg> > > (thinks that source is 1.17.12 and binaries 1.17.10, half-true I guess) > <https://packages.debian.org/jessie/dpkg> (1.17.10) > <https://packages.debian.org/source/jessie/dpkg> (1.17.12) > > This is part of the release team, which looks wrong: > > (thinks it's migrating from 1.17.12 to 1.17.13) > <https://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=dpkg> At least britney has things right: | dpkg (1.17.10 to 1.17.13) | | Maintainer: Dpkg Developers | Too young, only 2 of 10 days old | dpkg (source, i386, amd64, armel, armhf, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390x) has new bugs! | Updating dpkg introduces new bugs: #758778 | Updating dpkg fixes old bugs: #758199 | Not considered (https://release.debian.org/britney/update_excuses.html) > If this analysis seems right I can probably file some bug reports, and > I guess the way to fix this would be to ignore any source that is marked > Extra-Source-Only:yes? That's probably the issue for testing.pl yeah. Looking briefly at it, it seems to be using stripped-down versions of packages/sources files, namely testing.pkgs and testing.srcs. I think tools/migration/cronjob.sh would need to be smarter. And use more https. And it might be helpful to figure out how incoming changes might have led to the need for other fixes. Mraw, KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature