Debian Bug report logs - #626394
"Priority: source" in Sources

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: "Priority: source" in Sources

Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 17:40:55 +0200

Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal

$ zgrep ^Priority: /srv/ftp.debian.org/mirror/dists/unstable/main/source/Sources.gz | sort | uniq -c
      2 Priority: extra
      2 Priority: optional
  17935 Priority: source


"source" is not a valid value for the Priority field.

-- 
Jakub Wilk

Message #10 received at 626394@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" <jackyf@debian.org>

To: 626394@bugs.debian.org

Cc: 626394-submitter@bugs.debian.org

Subject: 'priority:source' - any news?

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 19:22:01 +0200

Hello,

Any news about this?

-- 
Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com
C++/Perl developer, Debian Developer

Message #16 received at 626394@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>

To: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>, "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" <jackyf@debian.org>

Cc: 626394@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: "Priority: source" in Sources

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:48:03 +0200

Hi,

Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org> writes:
> "source" is not a valid value for the Priority field.

Is this used anywhere or could dak just output "Priority: optional" for
all source packages (and maybe drop the field for Sources long-term)?

Regards,
Ansgar

Message #21 received at 626394@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" <jackyf@debian.org>

To: 626394@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>

Subject: Re: "Priority: source" in Sources

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:25:31 +0300

Hi,

On 2012-03-26 18:48, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org> writes:
> > "source" is not a valid value for the Priority field.
> 
> Is this used anywhere or could dak just output "Priority: optional" for
> all source packages (and maybe drop the field for Sources long-term)?

I personally care about this issue only because I have a software which
shows a warning when it tries to parse any Debian source package. I
don't have a real use for this field but can't say for others.

So I would be fine with the second.

-- 
Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com
C++/Perl developer, Debian Developer

Message #24 received at 626394@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>

To: 626394@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-wb-team@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: "Priority: source" in Sources

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:11:14 +0200

(Context: dak produces Sources files with incorrect Priority field.)

* Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>, 2012-03-26, 18:48:
>>"source" is not a valid value for the Priority field.
>Is this used anywhere or could dak just output "Priority: optional" for 
>all source packages (and maybe drop the field for Sources long-term)?

I suspect that wanna-build might be using it.

wb-team folks, could you confirm/deny?

-- 
Jakub Wilk

Message #27 received at 626394@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org>

To: 626394@bugs.debian.org, debian-wb-team@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: "Priority: source" in Sources

Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:40:42 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 09:11:14PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> (Context: dak produces Sources files with incorrect Priority field.)
> * Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>, 2012-03-26, 18:48:
> >>"source" is not a valid value for the Priority field.
> >Is this used anywhere or could dak just output "Priority:
> >optional" for all source packages (and maybe drop the field for
> >Sources long-term)?
> I suspect that wanna-build might be using it.
> wb-team folks, could you confirm/deny?

Yep, we sort the packages to build by source priority.  My gut feeling is that
it should be the max priority of the set of binaries it builds to keep that
feature.  OTOH the uploaded source packages do have a priority. (The one in the
source stanza is replicated into the .changes.)

Kind regards,
Philipp Kern
-- 
 .''`.  Philipp Kern                        Debian Developer
: :' :  http://philkern.de                         Stable Release Manager
`. `'   xmpp:phil@0x539.de                         Wanna-Build Admin
  `-    finger pkern/key@db.debian.org

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #32 received at 626394@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>

To: Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org>, 626394@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#626394: "Priority: source" in Sources

Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:49:32 +0200

On 03/27/2012 08:40 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Yep, we sort the packages to build by source priority.  My gut feeling is that
> it should be the max priority of the set of binaries it builds to keep that
> feature.  OTOH the uploaded source packages do have a priority. (The one in the
> source stanza is replicated into the .changes.)

I don't think the Priority field is required in the source stanza.  Also
we should use the values from the overrides instead of the ones in the
package itself which leaves two possibilities to implement this:

a, Let gps2 use max(override_priority) of *uploaded* binary packages.
(Maybe also store this in the override table.)

b, Add a dak command to update the priority for source overrides to
max(override_priority) of binary packages listed in the Package-List
field of the .dsc; fallback to "Priority: extra".

With a, the Priority could change as binaries for additional
architectures arrive (that do not exist for the architectures already
uploaded).

As b, needs to look at all source packages, it probably should only run
at dinstall.  Priorities for new packages would be wrong until the next
dinstall run.  I believe it is also a bit more complicated to implement
than a,.

Ansgar

Message #35 received at 626394@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org>

To: Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>

Cc: 626394@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#626394: "Priority: source" in Sources

Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:18:21 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hallo Ansgar,

am Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 02:49:32PM +0200 hast du folgendes geschrieben:
> On 03/27/2012 08:40 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > Yep, we sort the packages to build by source priority.  My gut feeling is that
> > it should be the max priority of the set of binaries it builds to keep that
> > feature.  OTOH the uploaded source packages do have a priority. (The one in the
> > source stanza is replicated into the .changes.)
> I don't think the Priority field is required in the source stanza.  Also
> we should use the values from the overrides instead of the ones in the
> package itself which leaves two possibilities to implement this:

programs trip over it being missing: [1].

Kind regards,
Philipp Kern

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=611805
-- 
 .''`.  Philipp Kern                        Debian Developer
: :' :  http://philkern.de                         Stable Release Manager
`. `'   xmpp:phil@0x539.de                         Wanna-Build Admin
  `-    finger pkern/key@db.debian.org

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #40 received at 626394@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>

To: Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org>, 626394@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#626394: "Priority: source" in Sources

Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:13:35 +0200

Hi,

On 03/27/2012 03:18 PM, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> I don't think the Priority field is required in the source stanza.  Also
>> we should use the values from the overrides instead of the ones in the
>> package itself which leaves two possibilities to implement this:
> 
> programs trip over it being missing: [1].
> 
> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=611805

Policy 5.{2-4} have Priority only as "recommended" or, for the .dsc, do
not mention it at all.  2.5 also only says that packages "should" have a
priority value.  So requiring a Priority field is a bug in reprepro.

Does wanna-build use the Priority field for source packages? It seems to
calculate a Priority field on its own: I have a package in
experimental[2] that says "libs:source" for already uploaded
architectures, but gets "libs:optional" for the remaining archs.

Regards,
Ansgar

[2]
<https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=dune-common&suite=experimental>

Message #45 received at 626394@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" <jackyf@debian.org>

To: Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>

Cc: 626394@bugs.debian.org, 626394-submitter@bugs.debian.org, debian-wb-team@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: "Priority: source" in Sources

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 22:02:23 +0300

Hi Ansgar,

If it's easy to do, could you please change the output value from
'source' to 'optional' (as you suggested before) while the proper way to
deal with this is discussed? I guess it won't make things worse for
anyone who is trying to extract something useful from this field.

-- 
Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com
C++/Perl developer, Debian Developer

Message #53 received at 626394@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: James McCoy <jamessan@debian.org>

To: Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>, 626394@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#626394: "Priority: source" in Sources

Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 22:57:37 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 06:48:03PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org> writes:
> > "source" is not a valid value for the Priority field.
> 
> Is this used anywhere or could dak just output "Priority: optional" for
> all source packages (and maybe drop the field for Sources long-term)?

As a data point, the PTS displays a (priority, section) pair in the
General panel for a source package.  This priority is also used to
determine whether a "more maintainers could be useful" message for
packages with priority >= standard and no co-maintainers.

Granted, this hasn't been working since testing was Wheezy and no one
has noticed until now, as investigation into migrating PTS functionality
to tracker.d.o happens.

Cheers,
-- 
James
GPG Key: 4096R/331BA3DB 2011-12-05 James McCoy <jamessan@debian.org>

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.