[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#1028503: marked as done (UDD: Unknown "yes" value for Forwarded field in patch metadata)

Your message dated Fri, 13 Jan 2023 22:59:02 +0100
with message-id <Y8HUJgBVjltxYC+S@xanadu.blop.info>
and subject line Re: Bug#1028503: UDD: Unknown "yes" value for Forwarded field in patch metadata
has caused the Debian Bug report #1028503,
regarding UDD: Unknown "yes" value for Forwarded field in patch metadata
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@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
1028503: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1028503
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: qa.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: udd

Hi!

The new patch data is great, thanks! I just noticed though that it does
not recognize a "yes" value for the Forwarded field, while the
"Patch Tagging Guidelines" has this to say about it:

  * Forwarded (optional)

    Any value other than "no" or "not-needed" means that the patch has
    been forwarded upstream. Ideally the value is an URL proving that
    it has been forwarded and where one can find more information about
    its inclusion status.

    If the field is missing, its implicit value is "yes" if the "Bug"
    field is present, otherwise it's "no". The field is really required
    only if the patch is vendor specific, in that case its value should
    be "not-needed" to indicate that the patch must not be forwarded
    upstream (whereas "no" simply means that it has not yet been done).

So it says that any value other than "no" or "not-needed" means
forwarded, then it says that if the field is missing it means it is an
implicit value of "yes", where I've always interpreted as implicitly
stating that "yes" is also a valid value.

(I also recently amended the patch metadata header template generated
by dpkg-source and did not have "yes" as a value there, but I've added
it locally now, and will probably queue it for dpkg 1.22.x.)

Thanks,
Guillem

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 12/01/23 at 12:05 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> But I could do better, and consider the Bug field in the analysis.

This is now implemented.

> The problem I have is that the 'Bug' header is often misused, and used
> for the Debian bug instead of the upstream bug. But I could special-case
> that.

Such cases are marked 'invalid', and the explanation is provided in a
tooltip.

Closing the bug.  Thanks for the report!

Lucas

--- End Message ---
Reply to: