• Bug#1107215: UDD/patches: is more strict than DEP-3

    From Marc Haber@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jun 3 08:30:01 2025
    XPost: linux.debian.devel.qa

    Package: qa.debian.org
    Severity: normal
    User: qa.debian.org@packages.debian.org
    Usertags: udd

    Hi,

    https://udd.debian.org/patches.cgi?src=atop&version=2.11.1-3 flags two
    patches having an "invalid" forwarded field. Those two patches have
    Forwarded: via web form
    in their headers. Upstream used to have a custom web form to submit bug
    reports and patches without a visible user database behind it. Hence, I
    cannot put an URL here. The web form doesn't exist any more, Upstream is
    using github now.

    DEP-3 says:

    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).

    I therefore believe that "Forwarded: via web form" is NOT invalid, but
    valid and allowed usage for the Forwarded: header and that UDD is being overzealous here.

    Greetings
    Marc

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lucas Nussbaum@21:1/5 to Marc Haber on Tue Jun 3 09:50:01 2025
    XPost: linux.debian.devel.qa

    Control: retitle -1 UDD/patches: handling of Forwarded is more strict than DEP-3

    On 03/06/25 at 08:21 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
    Package: qa.debian.org
    Severity: normal
    User: qa.debian.org@packages.debian.org
    Usertags: udd

    Hi,

    https://udd.debian.org/patches.cgi?src=atop&version=2.11.1-3 flags two patches having an "invalid" forwarded field. Those two patches have Forwarded: via web form
    in their headers. Upstream used to have a custom web form to submit bug reports and patches without a visible user database behind it. Hence, I cannot put an URL here. The web form doesn't exist any more, Upstream is using github now.

    DEP-3 says:

    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).

    I therefore believe that "Forwarded: via web form" is NOT invalid, but
    valid and allowed usage for the Forwarded: header and that UDD is being overzealous here.

    Hi Marc,

    Ack. See also #1043043 and #1034102, that are related

    Lucas

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marc Haber@21:1/5 to Lucas Nussbaum on Tue Jun 3 11:30:01 2025
    XPost: linux.debian.devel.qa

    Control: forcemerge 1043043 -1
    Thanks

    On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 09:38:26AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
    Ack. See also #1043043 and #1034102, that are related

    Actually duplicate. Merging

    Greetings
    Marc

    -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)