Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #242181 > unrolled thread

obsolete content in 'Debian NEW and BYHAND Packages'?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  obsolete content in 'Debian NEW and BYHAND Packages'? Patrice Duroux <patrice.duroux@gmail.com> - 2021-11-14 18:40 +0100
    Re: obsolete content in 'Debian NEW and BYHAND Packages'? The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-11-14 19:00 +0100
      Re: Re: obsolete content in 'Debian NEW and BYHAND Packages'? Patrice Duroux <patrice.duroux@gmail.com> - 2021-11-14 20:00 +0100

#242181 — obsolete content in 'Debian NEW and BYHAND Packages'?

Hi,

I am curious about the reason to see cockpit listed here:
https://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html
whereas cockpit currently is 257 in Sid:
https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/cockpit

Is this a bug? Are there other cases like this?
Not sure where to report if there is something to do about this.

Thanks,
Patrice

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#242184

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2021-11-14 at 12:21, Patrice Duroux wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I am curious about the reason to see cockpit listed here:
> https://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html
> whereas cockpit currently is 257 in Sid:
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/cockpit

I'm not terribly familiar with this interface, but just offhand, my
suspicion would be that the key here is the fact that the listed
versions are listed as being in experimental.

Without being able to look at more of the actual code and/or workflow
involved here, my guess would be that what happened is:


cockpit 243-1 was uploaded, targeting experimental, and was accepted.

cockpit 243-2 was uploaded, targeting experimental, but was never
accepted or rejected.

cockpit 244-1 was uploaded, targeting experimental, but was never
accepted or rejected.

cockpit 251-2 was uploaded, targeting experimental, but was never
accepted or rejected.

cockpit 257-1 was uploaded, targeting sid, and was accepted.

The intermediary versions have not (yet) cleared out of the queue.


The history on the tracker.debian.org page seems to be consistent with
that; in fact, it appears from that as if 251-1 was accepted into
unstable, and the versions newer than that didn't have to go through NEW
at all. Where 251-2 came into it is less clear; we'd probably have to
examine the history of the development of this package, and the
discussions surrounding it, to get that information.

> Is this a bug? Are there other cases like this?

If the above scenario is correct, then I imagine the fact that old
versions are not cleared out when a new one is accepted could be
considered such, and it wouldn't surprise me if there were more examples
where that had happened.

> Not sure where to report if there is something to do about this.

I'm not sure either. I think there's a ftp-masters E-mail address;
whether there's a pseudopackage for bug reports, etc., or not I'm not sure.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242189

Then I have just submitted a reportbug to the pseudopackage ftp.debian.org in
case.

Thanks!
Patrice

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web