If there are multiple versions of an arch:all package in unstable (due
to outdated or no longer built arch:any packages) then only one of them
should be recorded in the list of binary packages built from the source
package. Otherwise we may try and remove the binary package from various
lists multiple times, leading to crashes.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
Given a source which provides two packages and has different versions
in testing and unstable, binNMUs in unstable corresponding to the
older source version should not be considered as migration candidates.
For example:
testing
-------
source 1
bin 1 arch1
bin 1 arch2
unstable
--------
source 2
bin 2 arch1
bin 1+b1 arch2
The binary migration on arch2 should not be considered a candidate.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
Although this should never happen, rather than crashing if one of the
versions is none, simply indicate that they are unequal.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
Although this isn't an issue during normal runs, the excuses might be
built multiple times during a hint-tester run and should not accumulate
during the run.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
For those hints which don't cause an immediate run (i.e. other than
easy, hint and force-hint), re-build the excuses after adding the
hint so that the actions are accounted for in later hints.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
A binNMU does not rebuild architecture:all packages. For migrations via
unstable this is not a problem as the packages corresponding to the
source upload are still present. However, for *pu migrations, the set of
packages considered only includes architecture-specific packages. In
order to avoid installability issues with packages in testing which
depend on the arch:all packages, we leave the existing arch:all packages
in testing and only consider the arch-specific packages for migration.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
The test only needs to consider whether any binaries exist on a given
arch, not how many of them there are (or indeed which binaries they are)
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
When checking whether a tpu source has built on a particular arch, we
should only consider binaries produced by the latest version of the
source package in tpu.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
Originally when binNMUs for packages in testing were scheduled, the
binaries would be installed into tpu with no accompanying source. This
allowed the "removed binary" portions of should_upgrade_srcarch() to be
skipped (as britney had generated a faux source record).
dak now adds the source package to tpu in such cases which lead to the
"removed binary" checks being applied to binNMUs in tpu with potentially
destructive consequences. For example, if a package with amd64 and i386
binaries in testing were binNMUed on just amd64, britney would notice
that there were no i386 binaries in tpu and subsequently remove the i386
binaries from testing as well.
In order to resolve this, we skip the check for removed binaries when
building excuses for a binary-only migration via *pu.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
The primary difference between the parsing / output of excuses for *pu
and unstable unblocks is the messages displayed. We can therefore remove
some duplication by having the same code handle both, outputting the
appropriate message.
Where a *pu package is also the subject of a "block" (most likely during
a freeze) we only supply the "needs approval" or "approved" message;
previously both "needs approval" and "not touching due to block" were
output, which is redundant. We ensure that there is always a dummy
"block" hint for *pu packages to provide the "needs approval" behaviour.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
An "approve" hint is effectively an unblock for tpu packages and britney
is already quiite happy to parse "unblock $pkg/$tpuversion".
We allow the old name to be used for compatibility and replace it with
"unblock" internally.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
