1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.DEBIAN.DEVEL.MENTOR

  • failing to properly close serious bug; impacting migration to testing

    From Joost van =?utf-8?Q?Baal-Ili=C4=87?@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 1 10:00:01 2025
    Hi,

    At https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/pwdsphinx
    it says: "Updating pwdsphinx would introduce bugs in testing: #1090262" .

    And at https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/pyequihash it says: "Marked for autoremoval on 14 January: #1090264" .

    However, afaiu, both https://bugs.debian.org/1090262 and https://bugs.debian.org/1090264 are closed.

    (They are about "FTBFS: ValueError: Unable to find libequihash", which was fixed in the libequihash 1.0.10-2 upload at december 15; I closed the bugs manually after that.)

    What can I do to make sure both src:pwdsphinx and src:pyequihash will get shipped with upcoming trixie release? What am I missing here?

    Thanks! Bye,

    Joost

    --
    happy 45� !

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tobias Frost@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 1 11:20:01 2025
    On Wed, Jan 01, 2025 at 09:51:48AM +0100, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote:
    Hi,

    At https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/pwdsphinx
    it says: "Updating pwdsphinx would introduce bugs in testing: #1090262" .

    And at https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/pyequihash it says: "Marked for autoremoval on 14 January: #1090264" .

    However, afaiu, both https://bugs.debian.org/1090262 and https://bugs.debian.org/1090264 are closed.

    (They are about "FTBFS: ValueError: Unable to find libequihash", which was fixed in the libequihash 1.0.10-2 upload at december 15; I closed the bugs manually after that.)

    What can I do to make sure both src:pwdsphinx and src:pyequihash will get shipped with upcoming trixie release? What am I missing here?

    Best thing is of course to close bugs via debian/changelog.

    In this case, you need to tell the BTS when the bug has been fixed, for
    example by "bts fixed 1090262 1.99.2-beta-5", assuming your last upload.


    1090264:
    The bug is filed against src:pyequihash, but fixed in src:pwdsphinx/1.99.2-beta-2? Is this intentional?
    1090264#20 indicates it is not, so please fix the meta data
    and hint the bts about the right version it has been fixed, like shown
    above.

    --
    tobi


    -- System Information:
    Debian Release: trixie/sid
    APT prefers unstable-debug
    APT policy: (500, 'unstable-debug'), (500, 'stable-security'), (500, 'oldstable-security'), (500, 'oldoldstable'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (500, 'oldstable'), (1, 'experimental')
    Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
    Foreign Architectures: i386

    Kernel: Linux 6.12.6-amd64 (SMP w/12 CPU threads; PREEMPT)
    Kernel taint flags: TAINT_WARN, TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
    Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_US:en
    Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash
    Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
    LSM: AppArmor: enabled
    fixed the issue. (see bts(1) for this nice tool.)


    Thanks! Bye,

    Joost

    --
    happy 45² !


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Andrey Rakhmatullin@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 1 12:20:01 2025
    On Wed, Jan 01, 2025 at 09:51:48AM +0100, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote:
    Hi,

    At https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/pwdsphinx
    it says: "Updating pwdsphinx would introduce bugs in testing: #1090262" .

    And at https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/pyequihash it says: "Marked for autoremoval on 14 January: #1090264" .

    However, afaiu, both https://bugs.debian.org/1090262 and https://bugs.debian.org/1090264 are closed.

    The "done" status of a bug report almost never matters, to tools or to
    people.
    And tools like the migration and autoremoval ones care whether a bug is
    fixed in a given release, which is easily seen on the graph on the bug
    report page.

    (They are about "FTBFS: ValueError: Unable to find libequihash", which was fixed in the libequihash 1.0.10-2 upload at december 15; I closed the bugs manually after that.)

    Closing bugs manually requires a lot of understanding how all of this
    works.
    You tried to mark both 1090262 and 1090264 as fixed in various packages
    that either don't exist or are not the package that the bug was reported against, so the packages remained to be marked as buggy.
    It seems that you did this because the bug was not in the packages those reports were filed against but in a different package. The reports
    describe this possibility and the correct way to deal with this:
    "If this is really a bug in one of the build-depends, please use
    reassign and affects, so that this is still visible in the BTS web
    page for this package." If this was done, the bug reports would be
    correctly closed by the upload that fixed the bug itself.

    --
    WBR, wRAR

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQJhBAABCgBLFiEEolIP6gqGcKZh3YxVM2L3AxpJkuEFAmd1IpctFIAAAAAAFQAP cGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3Jnd3JhckBkZWJpYW4ub3JnAAoJEDNi9wMaSZLh 7NsP/jyAnweFtlR+yjhw6J3VdiOcNYW6qu9nlJMGW2o3G+vJyH4u7HapAk7Vj1Vr +op5VtMIqxVlhg3xVs+hdabubnExpjD+KA8Rs5qESKZrm6XQTpVdTXiuflLNdwM0 jtMLblwiP7bLf12pZLSpQqYFugrSQRseSX6BCNoaZkMJL73jF2oXZFHCUbwbw2H8 JZDvqaF4toFAzCHjR+vmKIja1IDakOVcdOf6sVcuIPlLIE/zRbLBIffjey+PDCfo 6mjRTJ36iue9dHj/kW+AvadxmllPPkw26HP8LCk8FlGg12B/jhPwV+gapstVh97k luMlGBGhS6wWhHIf/S7pAsK9kjv89M2dKy3wCz8yTwnrEAINNJWxaaOQF00eW32y zqcRJaa7YgLLuTInXMUBHlbvwdYTJ64+/oWuWMO2zcbYf7JFbBqCg96yPSahMjmc Q1Ye2vFdnrzwYIhKAaJOopaquWoc9tq6uvvuNSPBQG253hp5R88LY7RBnY2bvvyr xvE+8guAQN7IzjWAOc96eRW1L5NOmmvoeUTJP9J7qyeNAMYupy5t2bJvZxPEpIKl X9L3tNMRpCPDM5h67st8kJnGosLasxonxlhCk2BKXU/CBKLEsnYxsltYc52ftpZq bCPvh60PC364Gvc7Zuk+C121AlCoio1WAydz2qz3MOXiZZsu
    =O6vp
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joost van =?utf-8?Q?Baal-Ili=C4=87?@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 1 13:00:01 2025
    Hi,

    Thank you Tobias, Gianfranco and Andrey for your insightfull comments. Both Tobias and Gianfranco have changed the bug status (thanks for that!); I'll wait a day to see if this fixed the issue. If not, I expect I am now able to clean my mess myself.

    Bye,

    Joost

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joost van =?utf-8?Q?Baal-Ili=C4=87?@21:1/5 to Gianfranco Costamagna on Thu Jan 2 04:20:01 2025
    On Wed, Jan 01, 2025 at 07:33:55PM +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
    Hello, looks fixed now,
    indeed one of the bugs was marking the same version as affected and fixed, so confusing BTS

    A, that explains! Thanks for checking again.

    Take care, Bye,

    Joost

    --
    Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
    Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
    --Samuel Beckett in "Worstward Ho" (1983)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)