Rhonda's Blog                    
Mainpage Disclaimer

Thu, 19 Jan 2012

Squeeze RCs's Squashing 2012 #1

As sort of new year's resolution I started picking up the habit to work on release critical bugreports for squeeze again. The number is way to high to be healthy, but at least it is (still) below the amount of release critical bugreports for unstable.

It will be an uneven fight because it seems that there are quite some people working on weeding out release critical bugreports in unstable, but those who are interested in weeding out releasing critical bugreports in stable seems to be limited, even though it is one of our supported releases and thus should receive quite some attention, at least by the corresponding package maintainers themself.

So here is the list that I managed so far:

  • 651792: not relevant for squeeze
  • 653520: builds on squeeze
  • 654568: re-add version information lost in reassign
  • 654276: not relevant for squeeze
  • 654257: not failing on squeeze
  • 654810: not happening on squeeze
  • 654459: not relevant for squeeze
  • 654406: not release critical at all, shipped as upstream
  • 655007: python2.7 isn't default in squeeze
  • 655372: doesn't fail in squeeze
  • 527403: libjack-dev in squeeze provides libjack0.100.0-dev
  • 622903: not relevant for squeeze
  • 625764: squeeze has older version of libvelocity-tools-java, not affected
  • 654818: does work in squeeze
  • 647795: squeeze still has libahven1-dev
  • 647796: squeeze still has libahven1-dev
  • 636823: not obsolete in squeeze
  • 628500: no perl 5.14 in squeeze
  • 629255: no perl 5.14 in squeeze
  • 629284: no perl 5.14 in squeeze
  • 629293: no perl 5.14 in squeeze
  • 636132: no perl 5.14 in squeeze
  • 636268: no perl 5.14 in squeeze
  • 636271: no perl 5.14 in squeeze
  • 636517: no perl 5.14 in squeeze
  • 636520: no perl 5.14 in squeeze
  • 636521: no perl 5.14 in squeeze
  • 636522: no perl 5.14 in squeeze
  • 636823: not obsolete dependencies in squeeze

That makes 29 squeeze RCs squashed so far, I hope I can keep up with it.


/debian | permanent link | Comments: 2

Trackbacks are closed for this story.

Otto Kranz wrote at 2012-01-19 20:54:

If almost no bug of those above is affecting squeeze, the term "release-critical" does not mean anything. Nevertheless your efforts are quite appreciated. I wonder if it cannot be automated by marking only those bugs affecting squeeze if their version number in the bug report is lower or equal. The information itself is contained in almost any report above.

Gerfried Fuchs wrote at 2012-01-19 21:25:

Well, the term means bugreports against the release with a severity of serious, grave or critical. RC squashing for unstable often does also mean weeding out false reports, and yes, that's the easy part here. It will get more interesting when there are no false positives left, but that still means someone has to go through them all.

About the version information: The bugreports are only appearing in the list about affecting squeeze if their version information says so (or is lacking which means ALL versions to be affected). I usually also send a hint to the reporters of said bugs that they should look more closely and tag the bugs themself accordingly, but the awareness still seems to be rather low.

Most of the times the bugs are seen affecting squeeze too because the package wasn't updated since the release of squeeze, thus meaning same version in squeeze and unstable, and thus the version information within the bug doesn't gain you anything.

Comments are closed for this story.

If you want to syndicate this blog, feel free to do so.
This list contains the feeds that I follow:

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat


©opyright 1999++ by Rhonda
[rss feed]

[html by vim] [graphics by gimp]

[generated by wml]

[powered by blosxom]