Your message dated Sun, 9 Aug 2015 23:08:33 +0100 with message-id <20150809220833.GI14905@lupin.home.powdarrmonkey.net> and subject line Re: Bug#794344: transition: python-sqlalchemy has caused the Debian Bug report #794344, regarding transition: python-sqlalchemy 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.) -- 794344: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=794344 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
- Subject: transition: python-sqlalchemy
- From: Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>
- Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2015 17:09:10 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20150801210910.6682.14893.reportbug@kitterma-E6430>
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition I noticed that sqlalchemy is not transitioning to testing because a number of depending packages need to be rebuilt. I've gotten a bit lost trying to figure out exactly which packages are left to do, so I'd appreciate it if you could set up a transition tracker to facilitate getting this done. Below is my likely not so great attempt at a Ben file. Fundamentally, a 'good' package will Depend: python-sqlalchemy (>= 1.0~), python-sqlalchemy (<< 1.1) and a 'bad' package will have a max version something less than 1.0. Ben file: title = "python-sqlalchemy"; is_affected = .depends ~ "python-sqlalchemy" ; is_good = .depends ~ "python-sqlalchemy (<< 1.1)"; is_bad = .depends ~ "python-sqlalchemy (<< 0.9)" | .depends ~ "python-sqlalchemy (<< 0.10)";
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>, 794344-done@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#794344: transition: python-sqlalchemy
- From: Jonathan Wiltshire <jmw@debian.org>
- Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 23:08:33 +0100
- Message-id: <20150809220833.GI14905@lupin.home.powdarrmonkey.net>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 5492844.gsheyAeI2X@kitterma-e6430>
- References: <[🔎] 20150801210910.6682.14893.reportbug@kitterma-E6430> <[🔎] fb7899aba6f0d57d53751d8cdbab85db@hogwarts.powdarrmonkey.net> <[🔎] 5492844.gsheyAeI2X@kitterma-e6430>
On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 07:42:40PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Saturday, August 01, 2015 10:41:06 PM Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > > On 2015-08-01 22:09, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > Package: release.debian.org > > > Severity: normal > > > User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org > > > Usertags: transition > > > > > > I noticed that sqlalchemy is not transitioning to testing because a > > > number of > > > depending packages need to be rebuilt. I've gotten a bit lost trying > > > to > > > figure out exactly which packages are left to do, so I'd appreciate it > > > if > > > you could set up a transition tracker to facilitate getting this done. > > > > > > Below is my likely not so great attempt at a Ben file. Fundamentally, > > > a > > > 'good' package will Depend: python-sqlalchemy (>= 1.0~), > > > python-sqlalchemy > > > (<< 1.1) and a 'bad' package will have a max version something less > > > than 1.0. > > > > > > Ben file: > > > > > > title = "python-sqlalchemy"; > > > is_affected = .depends ~ "python-sqlalchemy" ; > > > is_good = .depends ~ "python-sqlalchemy (<< 1.1)"; > > > is_bad = .depends ~ "python-sqlalchemy (<< 0.9)" | .depends ~ > > > "python-sqlalchemy (<< 0.10)"; > > > > I tried a few variations, but I found that some packages don't express > > version constraints on python-sqlalchemy so they show up unknown. I > > eventually settled on this: > > > > title = "sqlalchemy"; > > is_affected = .depends ~ /python3?-sqlalchemy/; > > is_good = .depends ~ /python3?-sqlalchemy/; > > is_bad = .depends ~ /python3?-sqlalchemy \(<< 0/; > > > > It relies on bad taking precedence over good, and seems to come up with > > a sensible result (from what I spot-checked). How does it look to you? > > > > https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/sqlalchemy.html > > I agree. It seems sensible (is consistent with the investigations I'd done > before I asked for the tracker). I'll work on turning the red ones into green > ones and then see what happens after. With neutron-vpnaas out of the way, sqlalchemy just migrated. -- Jonathan Wiltshire jmw@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---