Re: usertagging file conflicts [Was: Re: /usr-merge: continuous archive analysis]
Hello,
On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 10:35:24AM +0200, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> On 17/07/2023 07.16, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > Then I found treinen@debian.org using edos-file-overwrite. That latter
> > one seems like what I need here. Should we move it to the qa space and
> > drop the edos part? I suggest debian-qa@lists.debian.org usertags
> > file-overwrite. Otherwise, Ralf are you ok with me reusing your tag?
>
> Moving the usertag to the qa namespace sounds like a good idea.
I agree
> And dropping the ancient edos prefix ...
Yes. At the origin, the edos prefix was useful for us as the tool used
to detect these bugs came from the edos project, but that project is
over since a long time. And the tag has been used since then by others for
tagging these kind of bugs discovered independently. So yes, time
to simplify.
> edos-file-overwrite has been used primarily for file-vs-file conflicts (as
> these are the only ones detectable by analyzing .contents files)
That was it's original target, and more specifically between packages
in the same distro, but as Andreas explained that was extended by others
to upgrading bugs:
> We also didn't distinguish between file overwrites happening within a distro
> (two packages in sid shipping the same file) and on upgrades (the file in
> question moved between packages with insufficient Breaks+Replaces). Maybe we
> should.
Sounds like a good idea. However, I do not think that usertags support
a hierarchy of tags. So maybe different specific usertags with a common
prefix, like
fileconflict-installation (error occurs when one tries to install two
packages togther)
fileconflict-upgrade (error occurs when upgrading, due to missing
breaks/replaces)
fileconflict-directory (error occuring due to /usr merge)
Or something in this direction. -Ralf.
Reply to: