|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > January 2005 > NEW queue and ftp-master approval
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
NEW queue and ftp-master approval
|
|
| Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo 2005-01-24, 5:54 pm |
| Hello.
Our NEW queue is quite big and time needed to get package into unstable is
rather long. Nothing wrong with that for me, I know that ftp-masters are
busy and that approving these packages is very important and responsible
task.
But there are two kind of packages in NEW queue.
"Totally" new packages and old one that only incorporate new binary
package(s). These old packages has already source package in archive.
I think the latter should be handled first, and then if ftp-master has
some spare time he/she could handle totally new packages.
Any comments on that?
regards
fEnIo
--
_ Bartosz Fenski | mailto:fenio@debian.org | pgp:0x13fefc40 | IRC:fEnIo
_|_|_ 32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Polska
(0 0) phone:+48602383548 | proud Debian maintainer and user
ooO--(_)--Ooo http://skawina.eu.org | JID:fenio@jabber.org | RLU:172001
| |
| Andreas Tille 2005-01-24, 5:54 pm |
| On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> Any comments on that?
No further comments but an addition. I think there are some easy
tasks to *remove* packages like #283015 (or rather #282891). If
the situation is such simple as in this case the bug should not really
stand open for 60 days. It is really no problem but makes no professional
impression while it would be a good training for a ftp-master helper ...
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Goswin von Brederlow 2005-01-24, 5:54 pm |
| Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <fenio@debian.org> writes:
> Hello.
>
> Our NEW queue is quite big and time needed to get package into unstable is
> rather long. Nothing wrong with that for me, I know that ftp-masters are
> busy and that approving these packages is very important and responsible
> task.
>
> But there are two kind of packages in NEW queue.
>
> "Totally" new packages and old one that only incorporate new binary
> package(s). These old packages has already source package in archive.
>
> I think the latter should be handled first, and then if ftp-master has
> some spare time he/she could handle totally new packages.
I think ftp-master already has a more complex prioritizing than
that. Adding a new kernel images deb tends to be real fast (with
exceptions), adding a new deb to old source reasonable fast and
completly new source can take forever if questionable (e.g. mplyer).
> Any comments on that?
Why is manual intervention needed at all?
On a recent discussion about this on irc several things were said that
have to be done for NEW packages, e.g. inform some U.S. government
agency about the new deb, add an override entry into the db. The only
thing that wasn't easily scriptable was:
ftp-master might reject the new package name
Someone said ftp-master might want to check the source for the NEW deb
but that would apply to any source upload just as well IMHO. Debian
already trusts DDs to not mess up existing debs so it should be simple
to trust them not to mess up when splitting debs or adding more to an
existing source.
Overall, in my eyes, the question becomes: Does Debian trust DDs not
to add debs with silly names to existing sources?
Why not automate the NEW queue for packages with prior source versions
in the archive? Worst case ftp-master has to remove a deb with silly
name from archive and kick the DD for it.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
> regards
> fEnIo
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo 2005-01-24, 5:54 pm |
| On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 10:28:25PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> I think ftp-master already has a more complex prioritizing than
> that. Adding a new kernel images deb tends to be real fast (with
> exceptions), adding a new deb to old source reasonable fast and
> completly new source can take forever if questionable (e.g. mplyer).
Is he really got _any_ prority? Sure packages like mplayer are in NEW queue
for very long time, but seems that rest of packages is handled without any
priority and fact that package had already source in the archive doesn't
matter.
At least that's something what I think after tracking
http://developer.skolelinux.no/~pere/debian-NEW.html
Some packages are being hold (probably forever), but rest seems to be
approved in the order they appeared in NEW queue.
>
> Why is manual intervention needed at all?
>
> On a recent discussion about this on irc several things were said that
> have to be done for NEW packages, e.g. inform some U.S. government
> agency about the new deb, add an override entry into the db. The only
> thing that wasn't easily scriptable was:
>
> ftp-master might reject the new package name
>
> Someone said ftp-master might want to check the source for the NEW deb
> but that would apply to any source upload just as well IMHO. Debian
> already trusts DDs to not mess up existing debs so it should be simple
> to trust them not to mess up when splitting debs or adding more to an
> existing source.
>
> Overall, in my eyes, the question becomes: Does Debian trust DDs not
> to add debs with silly names to existing sources?
Who can we trust if not DDs?
> Why not automate the NEW queue for packages with prior source versions
> in the archive? Worst case ftp-master has to remove a deb with silly
> name from archive and kick the DD for it.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong.
I think you're right. There is always way to remove wrong packages, and
developer which uploaded it could be warned if that case.
It's still better than waiting for approval for a month, like it is already.
regards
fEnIo
--
_ Bartosz Fenski | mailto:fenio@debian.org | pgp:0x13fefc40 | IRC:fEnIo
_|_|_ 32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Polska
(0 0) phone:+48602383548 | proud Debian maintainer and user
ooO--(_)--Ooo http://skawina.eu.org | JID:fenio@jabber.org | RLU:172001
| |
| Otavio Salvador 2005-01-24, 5:54 pm |
| | |
| Ron Johnson 2005-01-25, 2:52 am |
| On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 22:28 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <fenio@debian.org> writes:
[snip]
> have to be done for NEW packages, e.g. inform some U.S. government
> agency about the new deb, add an override entry into the db. The only
Could you flesh that out a little?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.
"Why do we have to hide from the police, Daddy?"
"Because we use vi, son. They use emacs."
| |
| Kevin Mark 2005-01-25, 2:52 am |
| On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 10:28:25PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <fenio@debian.org> writes:
>
>
> I think ftp-master already has a more complex prioritizing than
> that. Adding a new kernel images deb tends to be real fast (with
> exceptions), adding a new deb to old source reasonable fast and
> completly new source can take forever if questionable (e.g. mplyer).
>
>
> Why is manual intervention needed at all?
>
> On a recent discussion about this on irc several things were said that
> have to be done for NEW packages, e.g. inform some U.S. government
> agency about the new deb, add an override entry into the db. The only
> thing that wasn't easily scriptable was:
>
> ftp-master might reject the new package name
>
>
> Someone said ftp-master might want to check the source for the NEW deb
> but that would apply to any source upload just as well IMHO. Debian
> already trusts DDs to not mess up existing debs so it should be simple
> to trust them not to mess up when splitting debs or adding more to an
> existing source.
>
>
> Overall, in my eyes, the question becomes: Does Debian trust DDs not
> to add debs with silly names to existing sources?
I think we should add a deparment of silly walks and
a department of silly names for packages! Hopefully Mr. Cleese could
head it! Vim is now called vim-vim-voo-voo-vee.
-Kev
--
counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted!
(__)
(oo)
/------\/
/ | ||
* /\---/\
~~ ~~
...."Have you mooed today?"...
| |
| Goswin von Brederlow 2005-01-25, 2:52 am |
| Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
> On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 22:28 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Could you flesh that out a little?
Details were a bit scetchy there on irc too. I would rather have an
ftp-master say what is actualy going on then repeat speculations.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Goswin von Brederlow 2005-01-25, 2:52 am |
| Otavio Salvador <otavio@debian.org> writes:
> || On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:56:20 +0100
> || Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <fenio@debian.org> wrote:
>
>
> bfaf> I think you're right. There is always way to remove wrong packages, and
> bfaf> developer which uploaded it could be warned if that case.
> bfaf> It's still better than waiting for approval for a month, like it is already.
>
> It can have bad implications on user side. If ftp-master remove a
> package of sid, for example, we can have users using the previous
> 'silly name' and then it will not be upgraded. Otherwise if maintainer
> include a Replaces, bla bla bla in control. But this will not be true
> for every silly named package.
Then the maintainer gets a bugreport saying they should
Replace/Conflict/Provide the silly name. Also ftp-mster could get an
automatic notice about new debs and a 3 day window to veto it or
something. ftp-master being a group that should suffice. The NEW queue
doesn't have to be instantanious.
How often does it actualy happen that ftp-master rejects the name of a
package? Did anyone have that happen to him/her when adding a new deb
to old source ever?
MfG
Goswin
PS: kernel-image-2.6.8-amd64 (which has a security fix for sarge iirc)
is still stuck in NEW. Thats the sort of package automation would
help.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Ron Johnson 2005-01-25, 2:52 am |
| On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 07:39 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>
>
> Details were a bit scetchy there on irc too. I would rather have an
> ftp-master say what is actualy going on then repeat speculations.
Sounds(*) like the paranoid rantings of a W-hater.
* But, of course, even paranoids have enemies too, rarely...
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody
stands around reloading."
Unknown
| |
| Marc Haber 2005-01-25, 2:52 am |
| On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:28:25 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow
<brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
>I think ftp-master already has a more complex prioritizing than
>that. Adding a new kernel images deb tends to be real fast (with
>exceptions), adding a new deb to old source reasonable fast and
>completly new source can take forever if questionable (e.g. mplyer).
And, as usual, no communication with the outside takes place. Which is
a real mess.
Greeetings
Marc
--=20
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! =
-----
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im =
Header
Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | =
http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 =
72739834
| |
| Joe Wreschnig 2005-01-25, 2:52 am |
| On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 01:06 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 07:39 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> Sounds(*) like the paranoid rantings of a W-hater.
Sounds like the nationalistic rantings of someone ignorant of US law.
(But then, Clinton never did anything worth knowing anyway, did he?)
It's not hard to find information about the measures Debian has taken
for crypto export compliance, which do involve sending information a
government mailbox (albeit one that probably goes unread) about our
exports:
http://lwn.net/2002/0328/a/deb-crypto.php3
--
Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
| |
| Frank Küster 2005-01-25, 7:49 am |
| Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
> How often does it actualy happen that ftp-master rejects the name of a
> package? Did anyone have that happen to him/her when adding a new deb
> to old source ever?
There have been discussions about library renaming in the last couple of
weeks, and IIRC the maintainer in the end was glad that his first choice
of names was rejected.
But that could also be done in a 3-day grace period; or this period
could be extended if the ftp-masters want to discuss with the
maintainer.=20
Regards, Frank
--=20
Frank K=FCster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Z=FCrich
Debian Developer
| |
| Otavio Salvador 2005-01-25, 7:49 am |
| | |
| Goswin von Brederlow 2005-01-25, 5:53 pm |
| Otavio Salvador <otavio@debian.org> writes:
> || On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:37:49 +0100
> || Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
>
> gvb> Then the maintainer gets a bugreport saying they should
> gvb> Replace/Conflict/Provide the silly name. Also ftp-mster could get an
> gvb> automatic notice about new debs and a 3 day window to veto it or
> gvb> something. ftp-master being a group that should suffice. The NEW queue
> gvb> doesn't have to be instantanious.
>
> gvb> How often does it actualy happen that ftp-master rejects the name of a
> gvb> package? Did anyone have that happen to him/her when adding a new deb
> gvb> to old source ever?
>
> This is not the only problem. ftp-master's also do some checks to see
> if we aren't do massive fragmentation of packages. I, personally, was
> one person who have a rejected package because I splited one and
> wasn't need.
Then other DDs will lart you and you revert the change. If it happens
before the package enters sarge that should be painless.
I could live with that if it means a lot more packages don't get stuck
in NEW. But maybe that is just me.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Otavio Salvador 2005-01-25, 5:53 pm |
| | |
| Frank Küster 2005-01-25, 5:53 pm |
| Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
[automatic NEW processing for split or renamed binary packages, and
occasionally a bug report and removal from the archive of a badly named
package]=20
> I could live with that if it means a lot more packages don't get stuck
> in NEW. But maybe that is just me.
No, you can add me.
Regards, Frank
--=20
Frank K=FCster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Z=FCrich
Debian Developer
| |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2005-01-31, 5:56 pm |
| Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
> Overall, in my eyes, the question becomes: Does Debian trust DDs not
> to add debs with silly names to existing sources?
I recently was very mistaken about the proper way to deal with a
confusing (to me) solib change, combined with a mistaken upload. If
there had not been checking of the new binary package name (and some
other related problems) then this would never even have been noticed.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Frank Küster 2005-01-31, 5:56 pm |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> schrieb:
> Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
>
>
> I recently was very mistaken about the proper way to deal with a
> confusing (to me) solib change, combined with a mistaken upload. If
> there had not been checking of the new binary package name (and some
> other related problems) then this would never even have been noticed.
Yes, I also think that such a check is a good thing. But what about the
delayed scheme that has been suggested previously? I am Cc-ing
ftp-masters, in case they are not aware of this discussion on -devel
- If a package is uploaded that is unknown, it is moved to the NEW
queue.=20
- If a package is uploaded that contains new binary packages, it is
moved to a special area of the NEW queue.
- It stays there for $number days, giving the ftp-masters the
opportunity to have a look at it
- If the ftp-masters approve the name change / package split, they just
do nothing, and the package is installed to its target distribution
after $number days
- If the ftp-masters have doubts, they move the package to the
ordinary NEW queue and contact the maintainer.
It would be up to the ftp-masters to set $number; probably 3 is a little
low given the current speed of NEW processing (although deciding "have
to look closer"/"don't have to look closer" should be rather fast), but
5 might fit. Or they can configure it, depending on their workload and
the number of packages entering NEW.
Regards, Frank
--=20
Frank K=FCster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Z=FCrich
Debian Developer
|
|
|
|
|