archive openings are not always fun (not forwarded issues, and ftbfs left over from the previous series)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

archive openings are not always fun (not forwarded issues, and ftbfs left over from the previous series)

Matthias Klose-6
Opening a new development series, syncing packages from Debian again, and having
multiple entangled transitions ongoing is not always fun, but we need to handle
that.  While working on those I see two kind of issues which could be improved.

Seeing an Ubuntu delta which is not forwarded to Debian.  When introducing an
Ubuntu delta (which itself isn't a bad idea), it is not necessary to immediately
forward an issue, and some of these fixes seem to be made during release times
when people are busy.  It would be much simpler to sync an applied fix from
Debian, removing the delta.

When we introduce new upstream versions, either by syncing from experimental, or
by going ahead in Ubuntu, we don't fix, and we don't even check for regressions
introduced by these changes.  It's easier to see and track when autopkg tests
fail, but not so much, when the package starts to ftbfs, and the first time you
discover and have to fix is, are unrelated transitions.  We have the ftbfs
information in form of the test rebuilds, and this can be used to check for
common ftbfs. Examples are:

  - recent glibc versions: removed header files, or newly implemented
    syscall wrappers.  These are one or two common error messages, which
    can be grepped for.

  - glib2.0/gtk syncs from experimental, deprecating functions. Again,
    a common error, which can be grepped for.

  - linux-libc-dev: A new upstream version usually introduces different
    issues, some may be general, but maybe not enough to grep for them.

I am also aware that introducing new compiler versions creates new ftbfs issues.
  These are usually known in advance by doing test rebuilds,  explicit bug
reports in LP for main, and filing issues for Debian.  Not perfect either.

Attaching a small shell script to download the logs for failed builds from a
ftbfs-report.  Feel free to experiment what you can discover by just grepping
the build logs.

Matthias

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

get-logs.sh (916 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: archive openings are not always fun (not forwarded issues, and ftbfs left over from the previous series)

Brian Murray-5
On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 12:33:22PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:

> Opening a new development series, syncing packages from Debian again, and
> having multiple entangled transitions ongoing is not always fun, but we need
> to handle that.  While working on those I see two kind of issues which could
> be improved.
>
> Seeing an Ubuntu delta which is not forwarded to Debian.  When introducing
> an Ubuntu delta (which itself isn't a bad idea), it is not necessary to
> immediately forward an issue, and some of these fixes seem to be made during
> release times when people are busy.  It would be much simpler to sync an
> applied fix from Debian, removing the delta.

There are a few tools available which make the process of forwarding
bugs to Debian easier. Both reportbug and submittodebian are documented
in the Ubuntu wiki[1].

Additionally, there is a forward-bug-to-debian python script in
ubuntu-qa-tools[2] which should forward a Launchpad bug to reportbug
which you can then submit to Debian.

[1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/ReportingToDebian
[2] https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol/ubuntu-qa-tools/+git/ubuntu-qa-tools/+ref/master

Happy Friday!
--
Brian Murray

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel