Search Results: "tolimar"

16 December 2011

Alexander Reichle-Schmehl: Release Critical Bug report for Week 50

The bug webinterface of the Ultimate Debian Database currently knows about the following release critical bugs:
In Total:1680
Affecting Wheezy:1038
Wheezy only:139
Remaining to be fixed in Wheezy:899
Of these 899 bugs, the following tags are set:
Pending in Wheezy:56
Patched in Wheezy:154
Duplicates in Wheezy:52
Can be fixed in a security Update:34
Contrib or non-free in Wheezy:10
Claimed in Wheezy:0
Delayed in Wheezy:5
Otherwise fixed in Wheezy:68
Ignoring all the above (multiple tags possible) 595 bugs need to be fixed by Debian Contributors to get Debian 7.0 Wheezy released. However, with the view of the Release Managers, 929 need to be dealt with for the release to happen. Please see Interpreting the release critical bug statistics for an explanation of the different numbers.

9 December 2011

Alexander Reichle-Schmehl: Release Critical Bug report for Week 49

The bug webinterface of the Ultimate Debian Database currently knows about the following release critical bugs:
In Total:1656
Affecting Wheezy:1005
Wheezy only:156
Remaining to be fixed in Wheezy:849
Of these 849 bugs, the following tags are set:
Pending in Wheezy:53
Patched in Wheezy:157
Duplicates in Wheezy:50
Can be fixed in a security Update:31
Contrib or non-free in Wheezy:9
Claimed in Wheezy:0
Delayed in Wheezy:9
Otherwise fixed in Wheezy:67
Ignoring all the above (multiple tags possible) 551 bugs need to be fixed by Debian Contributors to get Debian 7.0 Wheezy released. However, with the view of the Release Managers, 906 need to be dealt with for the release to happen. Please see Interpreting the release critical bug statistics for an explanation of the different numbers.

Alexander Reichle-Schmehl: RCBW (Release Critical Bugs of the Week) work flow addendum

Gregor Herrmann kindly posted his usual workflow for preparing non maintainer uploads (NMUs) fixing Release Critical bugs. I'd like to add, that it is usually a very good idea to also pts-subscribe to the package you uploaded, just in case you introduce some new bugs (see for #651452 or #651112 for examples of bugs I got to know after uploading NMUs). When subscribing you'll get copies of BTS activity, teesting migration and similar. You can either subscribe to that via the package tracking system at http://packages.qa.debian.org/<packagename> (see for example the iftop PTS) in the lower left box, or via the pts-subscribe command in the devscripts package. I prefer the later method, as that also creates a pts-unsubscribe job via at. But please know, that you need a working mail transfer agent as well as the tool at for that. Well, and it helps if you have a machine running most of the time ;)

5 December 2011

Alexander Reichle-Schmehl: Summary from the Bug Squashing Party in Hildesheim

Uff. Two and a half days of hunting release critical bugs ended yesterday evening. It think it was quite a success. According to the statistics we closed 23 bugs with direct uploads, we created patches for 11, 9 bugs got solved by package removals, 6 will be closed by uploads via the delayed queue, 2 bugs were closed as unreproducible, and 9 other bugs where closed as well (e.g. already fixed in older version). On the other hand we opened 3 and upgraded 6 bugs to be release critical. So in the end, we solved about... 60 bugs! Wow, I'm really impressed! I'm also really pleased how well we integrated the newbs. As I already mentioned, when planing for this BSP started, we were a bit worried about the DD / non-dd ratio, but in the end everything worked out very well. All of those, who registered as interested users where able to fix some rc bugs, or help sort out some BTS hickups, e.g. bugs opened with package a but closed in package b. And as a special pleasure it seems, that the longest outstanding rc bug might be fixed soonish, too :) I'd also like to thank Pengutronix for hosting and sponsoring the BSP! The infrastructure worked very well: You arrived, plugged in your notebook, had a local mirror, IPv6 and fast enough connection to the outside. They also provided lots of snacks, cooked food and drinks (later they complained Debian people won't drink enough; apparently they calculated with way more drinks) and a general good atmosphere. PS: To the best of my knowledge, it was also the greenest bug squashing party ever, with most foods and all the electricity coming from certified ecological production. Cool, eh?

4 December 2011

Alexander Reichle-Schmehl: Second day of the BSP In Hildesheim

Stats so far:
Closed with direct uploadeds: 20
Supplied a patch: 7
Closed by removals: 8
Unreproducible: 1
Closed otherwise (e.g. by proper versioning): 9 However, we also had to upgrade 6 and open 3 new bugs, but so far we still have solved more issues than we found :) PS: Actually I think the numbers are even better, as we forgot to count some of the bugs.

3 December 2011

Alexander Reichle-Schmehl: Report from the Bug Squashing Party in Hildesheim Part 1

Yesterday the Bug Squashing Party in Hildesheim, Germany started. I think it's going well, according to the statistics of the #debian-bugs channel, we solved 11 bugs with direct uploads, 2 with uploads to delayed, 5 via package removals and opened/upgraded only one. So we are still fixing more than we break ;) I'm especially pleased that some of the above was done by newbies. When we started to organise this BSP (well, when I started to watch Meike and Wolfram organise it to be precise), we where kind of worried by the experienced developer to newbie ratio, and already started to prepare introductions to packaging and similar adhoc sessions, but as it seems they don't seem to be needed. Good :) So back to fixing stuff, good hunt!

2 December 2011

Alexander Reichle-Schmehl: Release Critical Bug report for Week 48

The bug webinterface of the Ultimate Debian Database currently knows about the following release critical bugs:
In Total:1749
Affecting Wheezy:1094
Wheezy only:138
Remaining to be fixed in Wheezy:956
Of these 956 bugs, the following tags are set:
Pending in Wheezy:43
Patched in Wheezy:178
Duplicates in Wheezy:50
Can be fixed in a security Update:33
Contrib or non-free in Wheezy:12
Claimed in Wheezy:0
Delayed in Wheezy:2
Otherwise fixed in Wheezy:93
Ignoring all the above (multiple tags possible) 604 bugs need to be fixed by Debian Contributors to get Debian 7.0 Wheezy released. However, with the view of the Release Managers, 991 need to be dealt with for the release to happen. Please see Interpreting the release critical bug statistics for an explanation of the different numbers.

25 November 2011

Alexander Reichle-Schmehl: Release Critical Bug report for Week 47

The bug webinterface of the Ultimate Debian Database currently knows about the following release critical bugs:
In Total:1758
Affecting Wheezy:1102
Wheezy only:138
Remaining to be fixed in Wheezy:964
Of these 964 bugs, the following tags are set:
Pending in Wheezy:45
Patched in Wheezy:176
Duplicates in Wheezy:47
Can be fixed in a security Update:31
Contrib or non-free in Wheezy:13
Claimed in Wheezy:0
Delayed in Wheezy:2
Otherwise fixed in Wheezy:91
Ignoring all the above (multiple tags possible) 618 bugs need to be fixed by Debian Contributors to get Debian 7.0 Wheezy released. However, with the view of the Release Managers, 1002 need to be dealt with for the release to happen. Please see Interpreting the release critical bug statistics for an explanation of the different numbers.

18 November 2011

Alexander Reichle-Schmehl: Release Critical Bug report for Week 46

The bug webinterface of the Ultimate Debian Database currently knows about the following release critical bugs:
In Total:1812
Affecting Wheezy:1161
Wheezy only:163
Remaining to be fixed in Wheezy:998
Of these 998 bugs, the following tags are set:
Pending in Wheezy:47
Patched in Wheezy:191
Duplicates in Wheezy:47
Can be fixed in a security Update:31
Contrib or non-free in Wheezy:16
Claimed in Wheezy:0
Delayed in Wheezy:4
Otherwise fixed in Wheezy:89
Ignoring all the above (multiple tags possible) 631 bugs need to be fixed by Debian Contributors to get Debian 7.0 Wheezy released. However, with the view of the Release Managers, 1053 need to be dealt with for the release to happen. Please see Interpreting the release critical bug statistics for an explanation of the different numbers.

11 November 2011

Alexander Reichle-Schmehl: Release Critical Bug report for Week 45

The bug webinterface of the Ultimate Debian Database currently knows about the following release critical bugs:
In Total:1869
Affecting Wheezy:1211
Wheezy only:155
Remaining to be fixed in Wheezy:1056
Of these 1056 bugs, the following tags are set:
Pending in Wheezy:54
Patched in Wheezy:197
Duplicates in Wheezy:48
Can be fixed in a security Update:33
Contrib or non-free in Wheezy:12
Claimed in Wheezy:0
Delayed in Wheezy:10
Otherwise fixed in Wheezy:87
Ignoring all the above (multiple tags possible) 684 bugs need to be fixed by Debian Contributors to get Debian 7.0 Wheezy released. However, with the view of the Release Managers, 1105 need to be dealt with for the release to happen. Please see Interpreting the release critical bug statistics for an explanation of the different numbers.

7 November 2011

Alexander Reichle-Schmehl: Release Critical Bug report for Week 45

The bug webinterface of the Ultimate Debian Database currently knows about the following release critical bugs:
In Total:1893
Affecting Wheezy:1250
Wheezy only:180
Remaining to be fixed in Wheezy:1070
Of these 1070 bugs, the following tags are set:
Pending in Wheezy:47
Patched in Wheezy:190
Duplicates in Wheezy:51
Can be fixed in a security Update:33
Contrib or non-free in Wheezy:10
Claimed in Wheezy:0
Delayed in Wheezy:3
Otherwise fixed in Wheezy:87
Ignoring all the above (multiple tags possible) 709 bugs need to be fixed by Debian Contributors to get Debian 7.0 Wheezy released. However, with the view of the Release Managers, 1144 need to be dealt with for the release to happen. Please see Interpreting the release critical bug statistics for an explanation of the different numbers.

Alexander Reichle-Schmehl: Weekly RC Bug Statistics enabled again

Friday David Pr vot reminded me about the statistics for release critical bugs I used to publish during the squeeze release cycle, and asked if I could enable them again. After tweaking the script generating the statistics a bit (mainly a s/squeeze/wheezy/g) the stats will be again published weekly, every Friday at 13:05 CET. The first report is already available, and it seems it is about time, that we got the Wheezy Bug Squashing Party Marathon started! So, see you at the first BSP in Hildesheim.

23 October 2011

Luca Falavigna: Stats, more stats and, guess what? Even more stats!

We all love stats, don t we? So, here we go! Let s start with a graph: NEW graph It shows the number of packages in the NEW queue since last year. You can see a big drop during April 2011, and a reasonably low rate during the last six months. You could think fellow Debian Developers stopped to upload NEW packages. Sorry, you re wrong! :) Since Squeeze release, 3.832 .changes files with NEW components were processed by dak, with an average of 14,85 NEW packages per day. On the FTP Team side, we had 3.732 accepts (14,47 per day), 339 rejects (1,31 per day) and 178 comments to maintainers (0,69 per day).
Who were the most prolific maintainers who got a NEW processing? Here is our special top ten:
  1. Debian Haskell Group (362 packages)
  2. Debian Perl Group (343 packages)
  3. Debian Java Maintainers (161 packages)
  4. Debian Ruby Extras Maintainers (124 packages)
  5. Debian Multimedia Maintainers (100 packages)
  6. Debian Fonts Task Force (96 packages)
  7. Debian Med Packaging Team (79 packages)
  8. Debian Install System Team (61 packages)
  9. Debian Javascript Maintainers (54 packages)
  10. Debian Python Modules Team (50 packages)
That s bad packaging teams cannot bake cookies!
Let s do the same with Changed By, this time:
  1. Ben Hutchings (159 packages)
  2. Joachim Breitner (138 packages)
  3. Clint Adams (134 packages)
  4. Jonas Smedegaard (124 packages)
  5. TANIGUCHI Takaki (97 packages)
  6. Nicholas Bamber (61 packages)
  7. Alessio Treglia (60 packages)
  8. maximilian attems (54 packages)
  9. David Paleino (51 packages)
  10. Torsten Werner (45 packages)
Much better now go and heat up your ovens, we know who you are ;)
Another nice aspect to look at is the speed of NEW processing. Some maintainers were very happy for a fast NEW processing, someone even complained for having been too quick! :) So, let s find out which upload was the quickest ever. Try to gamble a bit before reading the answer, to see whether you are near to the real value ;) Alessio Treglia, you probably already know, because your gwc_0.21.16~dfsg-1 upload has been processed in 41 seconds (yes, forty-one seconds!). Here s an excerpt from ftp-master log to certify it:
20110516120252 process-upload dak Processing changes file gwc_0.21.16~dfsg-1_amd64.changes
20110516120258 process-upload dak Moving to new gwc_0.21.16~dfsg-1_amd64.changes
20110516120339 process-new tolimar NEW ACCEPT: gwc_0.21.16~dfsg-1_amd64.changes
Alex was the super-fast FTP Team member behind the quickest accept, do you want to beat him? Join FTP Team ;)

28 September 2011

Alexander Reichle-Schmehl: How to properly route packages on hosts with multiple NICs?

Dear lazyweb, I'm encountering a routing problem on one of my Linux machine, for which I haven't found a solution so far. I have a machine which has several network interfaces in different network (it's our monitoring system). So I have eth0 with 192.168.1.2 and eth1 with 10.0.0.2, and an dns entry pointing from myname to 192.168.1.2. Problems occur, if hosts in the 10.x.x.x network try to access the hosts. Accessing it via it's IP address in that network works, however if they try to access him via his other IP address 192.168.1.2 (e.g. because they resolve it via dns), it leads to some problems: The host send their packet to his IP address (which works), however when my machine sends the answer, it takes a shortcut, and sends them directly via eth1 and with 10.0.0.2 as source IP. This however gets filtered by a (stateful) firewall somewhere in between, as packet send to 192.168.1.2 are suddenly answered by 10.0.0.2. So far I found two solutions: Adjust the DNS to resolve to different IPs depending on the source of the request (ugly) or tell all firewalls to always let packet from my host pass, despite the changes source IP (also ugly, and probably quite some work). Is there anything else I can do? What I would really like, would be a way to tell my linux box to always respond with the IP it was talked to, even if there would be a shorter way to the origin according to the routing rable. So, if a host 10.0.0.42 contacts my host via the IP 192.168.1.2, the answer packet should come from 192.168.1.2 via eth0 instead of instead of having a source IP set to 10.0.0.2, it should be send via eth1. Is that somehow possible? Update: Wow, that was fast! The ink of my blog is still fresh, and I already got the answer! The solution to my problem is policy based routing. Thanks to weasel, Peter and Dale for their pointers! More information available at http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.html, http://www.itbuzzer.net/corner/2007/09/how-to-implement-source-routing-with.asp or http://wiki.georgweiss.de/Linux/source_routing.

19 August 2011

Alexander Reichle-Schmehl: How to read ftp-masters package numbers table

In my previous blog about Debian's growing archive size I pointed as reference to an hard to read table on the ftp-master server, and missed that the table is not self explanatory and on the first glance hard to read. The table currently looks like the following:
                  e      s     p-u     t      u    t-p-u   l-r    s-u     o    o-p-u   s-r   
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     all         1096  12034     70  14442  15784     20      1     12   8910    230      0  
    alpha           -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -  13183    297      -  
    amd64        1164  16997    242  18581  19605     39      -     21  13964    342      -  
     arm            -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -  13251    291      -  
    armel         988  16401    239  17879  18680     39      -     21  13411    327      -  
     hppa           -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -  13227    264      -  
  hurd-i386       445      -      -      -  12622      -      -      -      -      -      -  
     i386        1178  17188    242  18727  19751     39      -     21  14377    350      -  
     ia64         951  16036    239  17303  18045     39      -     21  13554    329      -  
kfreebsd-amd64    807  14499    231  15905  16480     39      -     21      -      -      -  
kfreebsd-i386     826  14491    231  15881  16498     39      -     21      -      -      -  
     mips         974  16269    241  17730  18504     39      -     21  13638    323      -  
    mipsel        984  16291    239  17807  18558     39      -     21  13600    319      -  
   powerpc       1078  16677    239  18156  19036     39      -     21  13872    332      -  
     s390        1030  16252    239  17678  18469     39      -     21  13331    327      -  
    source        522  14974     51  16376  17405      1     19      6  12519     75    151  
    sparc         992  16423    239  17895  18673     39      -     21  13542    329      -  
The lines represent different hardware architectures Debian supports, like amd64 (for 64-Bit PCs), i386 (for 32-Bit PCs), etc. Two lines are kind of special, the one marked source and the one marked all. Let's start with the source line: That counts the number of source packages. Those are rarely seen by end users. Source packages contain the actual source needed to build a package, as well as Debian specific changes and a blue print on how to create an actual installable binary package from the source. As you can see Debian supports quite some architectures, which leads to a small problem on the mirrors: Quite a lot shipped in Debian is actually architecture independent. For example documentation, most sound and graphic files, or level data for a game. To avoid storing the very same date multiple times, Debian makes haeavy use of so called arch: all packages. You might have noticed them already while installing them:
Hole:5 ftp://ftp.rrzn.uni-hannover.de/debian/debian/ squeeze/main extremetuxracer-data all 0.4-4 [28,1 MB]
Hole:6 ftp://ftp.rrzn.uni-hannover.de/debian/debian/ squeeze/main extremetuxracer amd64 0.4-4 [273 kB]
In this example I installed a quite small game on the amd64 architecture, which depends on a quite big architecture independent package (notice the all between package name and version) containing it's data.So, to get the actual number of packages a user can install on a specific architecture, one has to add the number in the all line to the number in the specific architecture line. But what column to pick? The columns represent so called suites. The s is for stable, currently Debian 6.0 aka Squeeze and o for oldstable, aka Debian 5.0 Lenny. The t is for testing, aka Wheezy or the upcoming Debian 7.0. The u is for unstable aka sid. The e is for experimental, used for stuff probably not yet ready to be part of a stable release and therefore not uploaded to unstable. The rest is not that interesting (as you see it's mostly empty anyway), like s-u for stable updates, several p-u suites for proposed-updates (that is stuff that might end up in the next point release, and should be tested). And then we have s-r and l-r which I forgot what they are about... Sorry. But back to topic: As I explained briefly a source package is mostly used internally, but may create several binary packages, which a user can install. So the most interesting number for users is the number of binary packages on an arch. So we usually publish this number. So for example, using squeeze on i386 you can install: 17'188 (architecture dependent packages, column s row i386) + 12'034 (architecture independent packages columns s row all) = 29'222 packages. And for completeness: They are build from 14'974 source packages (row source column s). So if look that up for unstable on amd64 you should get to the result 35'389 binary packages build from 17'405 source packages. Slightly less than I reported yesterday, because we removed some old stuff e.g. obsolete libraries in the meantime. Update: J rg just explained me, that the s-r and l-r are there to ensure Debian complies with the GPL. They hold the sources of everything shipped in the original lenny and squeeze releases. Update 2: J rg explained it to me again: s-r and l-r contains sources used without being referenced by a package, and so might get lost otherwise. One example is the kernel used by the debian installation system. You have to boot a kernel somehow, so it can't be packaged. But we still need to save the sources, so it is referenced in these suites and won't get lost.

18 August 2011

Alexander Reichle-Schmehl: The Debian archive is getting bigger every day

When Debian squeeze was released in February, it was shipped with slightly less than 30'000 packages. So it was just a matter of time till we also break that border. However, I was quite surprised when I checked the numbers lately and noticed that by now we not only broke the 30'000 packages border but also the 35'000 package! Right now there are 35403 packages available for installation in Debian's unstable branch for the amd64 / 64-Bit-PC architecture! Wow!

16 August 2011

Alexander Reichle-Schmehl: Happy Birthday!

birthday card Happy Birthday, Debian! Should you have the time, take a look at http://thank-you.debian.net/ and thank some package maintainers or other teams. Also it's not to late to organise a spontaneous DebianDay Party in your city! Picture by Valessio Brito licensed under the terms of the GPLv2. Source available at http://valessiobrito.info/d18th/.

26 July 2011

Alexander Reichle-Schmehl: -273,15, aka Absolute Zero

Continuing the shameless self-praise from our ftp-team talk, I'm now pleased to present you on behalf of the entire FTP-Team the following: As you can clearly see, you can see nothing. Yes, nothing! As of 18:55:52 UTC+2 the NEW queue, which at some times was well over 500, sometimes even 600 packages is now empty. Completely empty. To the best of my (and Ganneff's knowledge) the last time the NEW queue was empty was at least five years ago. Interesting enough, that triggered an yet undiscovered bug in dak, which refused to scan an empty directory...

Alexander Reichle-Schmehl: Slides of the How to contribute and get involved

The slides for our How to contribute and get involved are now available at http://people.debian.org/~tolimar/talks/debconf-11/. Feel free to ask any questions we might have left unanswered via e-mail or irc chat (I'm Tolimar on irc.debian.org).

15 July 2011

Alexander Reichle-Schmehl: About Debian, The Hurd and Linux or in short: Yes, we will still have a Linux kernel

A lot of online magazines are currently reporting about Debian, its port to the Hurd kernel and plans for the next release. However, there seem to be quite some misunderstandings. One online magazine took the cake by titling Debian 7.0 Wheezy: Erste Pl ne f r Hurd statt Linux-Kernel (rough translation: Debian 7.0 Wheezy: First plans for Hurd instead of Linux kernel), and a colleague already asked me, if we are really going to drop the Linux kernel. So let's clarify one thing: The Debian Project does not plan to drop its port to the Linux kernel (nor its two ports to the FreeBSD kernel for what it's worth). Apparently it all started with a short status report and if you read it, you'll just read that some people are trying and planing to get Debian 7 (aka wheezy) to be released with an additional port to the Hurd. It is not yet clear if they will achieve their goal, nor did anyone ever mention anything about replacing the Linux or the FreeBSD kernel. So, calm down, nothing changed, just someone talking about the possibility of adding yet another port to the next release. Please note the adding.

Next.

Previous.