Bug#489050: qa.debian.org: PTS says error processing watch file, DEHS says no error

[Ben Finney-5]

Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: normal

Recently I added a 'debian/watch' file to my package, 'lojban-common'.
The file processes via 'uscan --report' with no errors, and has done
so since it was added.

The PTS page <URL:http://packages.qa.debian.org/l/lojban-common.html>
reports:

    The package has a debian/watch file, but the last attempt to use
    it for checking for newer upstream versions failed with an error.

The text "an error" is an anchor linking, not to an error, but to
<URL:http://dehs.alioth.debian.org/maintainer.php?name=lojban-common>,
the DEHS page for the package.

That DEHS page shows that the watch file was processed with no errors:

    Uscan Errors processing Watch File: No errors

Why is the PTS page claiming there is an error processing the watch
file, and linking to a page that shows there was no such error?

I doubt it's because of some stale state: To my knowledge, the package
has *never* caused an error from its watch file, because the only one
it's ever had has never caused an error.

--
 \       “During the Middle Ages, probably one of the biggest mistakes |
  `\   was not putting on your armor because you were ‘just going down |
_o__)                                    to the corner.’” —Jack Handey |
Ben Finney <ben@...>

[Raphael Hertzog-3]

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> The PTS page <URL:http://packages.qa.debian.org/l/lojban-common.html>
> reports:
>
>     The package has a debian/watch file, but the last attempt to use
>     it for checking for newer upstream versions failed with an error.
>
> The text "an error" is an anchor linking, not to an error, but to
> <URL:http://dehs.alioth.debian.org/maintainer.php?name=lojban-common>,
> the DEHS page for the package.
[...]
> Why is the PTS page claiming there is an error processing the watch
> file, and linking to a page that shows there was no such error?
>
> I doubt it's because of some stale state: To my knowledge, the package
> has *never* caused an error from its watch file, because the only one
> it's ever had has never caused an error.

Please complaint to DEHS:
http://dehs.alioth.debian.org/no_upstream.txt
=> it says "lojban-common: Error"

Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog

Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Thu, 3 Jul 2008 12:33:38 -0500
with message-id <e9fb436d0807031033n18943d3dxb8ec3481a34f3aa7@...>
and subject line Re: [Dehs-devel] Bug#489050: qa.debian.org: PTS says error processing watch file, DEHS says no error
has caused the Debian Bug report #489050,
regarding qa.debian.org: PTS says error processing watch file, DEHS says no error
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@...
immediately.)


--
489050: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=489050
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@... with problems

Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: normal

Recently I added a 'debian/watch' file to my package, 'lojban-common'.
The file processes via 'uscan --report' with no errors, and has done
so since it was added.

The PTS page <URL:http://packages.qa.debian.org/l/lojban-common.html>
reports:

    The package has a debian/watch file, but the last attempt to use
    it for checking for newer upstream versions failed with an error.

The text "an error" is an anchor linking, not to an error, but to
<URL:http://dehs.alioth.debian.org/maintainer.php?name=lojban-common>,
the DEHS page for the package.

That DEHS page shows that the watch file was processed with no errors:

    Uscan Errors processing Watch File: No errors

Why is the PTS page claiming there is an error processing the watch
file, and linking to a page that shows there was no such error?

I doubt it's because of some stale state: To my knowledge, the package
has *never* caused an error from its watch file, because the only one
it's ever had has never caused an error.

--
 \       “During the Middle Ages, probably one of the biggest mistakes |
  `\   was not putting on your armor because you were ‘just going down |
_o__)                                    to the corner.’” —Jack Handey |
Ben Finney <ben@...>

On 03/07/2008, Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@...> wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
>  > The PTS page <URL:http://packages.qa.debian.org/l/lojban-common.html>
>  > reports:
>  >
>  >     The package has a debian/watch file, but the last attempt to use
>  >     it for checking for newer upstream versions failed with an error.
>  >
>  > The text "an error" is an anchor linking, not to an error, but to
>  > <URL:http://dehs.alioth.debian.org/maintainer.php?name=lojban-common>,
>  > the DEHS page for the package.
>  [...]
>  > Why is the PTS page claiming there is an error processing the watch
>  > file, and linking to a page that shows there was no such error?

The linked page says it could not check upstream.

>  >
>  > I doubt it's because of some stale state: To my knowledge, the package
>  > has *never* caused an error from its watch file, because the only one
>  > it's ever had has never caused an error.


Because it is "empty" (it does have some comment lines, but nothing
for uscan/DEHS). So DEHS thinks it has to check the watch file, but
since it is empty uscan doesn't complain and DEHS just reports that it
could not check it.

DEHS is not intended to actually examine the watch files so I will add
a lintian check for empty watch files (hoping Russ approves it) and
prevent DEHS from listing packages with no errors from uscan in the
file being grabbed by the PTS.

>
>  Please complaint to DEHS:
>  http://dehs.alioth.debian.org/no_upstream.txt
>  => it says "lojban-common: Error"
>
>  Cheers,
>  --
>  Raphaël Hertzog
>
>  Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
>  http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Dehs-devel mailing list
>  Dehs-devel@...
>  http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/dehs-devel
>

Cheers,
--
Atomo64 - Raphael

Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint or Excel attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

[Ben Finney-5]

On 03-Jul-2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> On 03/07/2008, Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@...> wrote:
> > On Thu, 03 Jul 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> >  > Why is the PTS page claiming there is an error processing the
> >  > watch file, and linking to a page that shows there was no such
> >  > error?
>
> The linked page says it could not check upstream.

Which is still not an *error*. If upstream is not checkable, it's not
an error if it's not checked.

> Because it is "empty" (it does have some comment lines, but nothing
> for uscan/DEHS). So DEHS thinks it has to check the watch file, but
> since it is empty uscan doesn't complain and DEHS just reports that
> it could not check it.

Surely, if 'uscan' does not complain when using the watch file, that
should satisfy DEHS.

> DEHS is not intended to actually examine the watch files

It should use 'uscan' for this, instead of inspecting the file itself.

> so I will add a lintian check for empty watch files (hoping Russ
> approves it)

This would conflict with what lintian already does in the case of a
*missing* watch file: it recommends that a watch file be created, and
if upstream cannot be scanned, explain this in comments (making it
"empty", if I understand you correctly).

Instead of DEHS checking for empty watch files, it should rely on
'uscan' which already knows how to interpret them.

> and prevent DEHS from listing packages with no errors from uscan in
> the file being grabbed by the PTS.

That would be good also. Thanks.

--
 \                            “Holy knit one purl two, Batman!” —Robin |
  `\                                                                   |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney <ben@...>