Signed-off-by: Dylan Aïssi <dylan.aissi@collabora.com>

Signed-off-by: Dylan Aïssi <dylan.aissi@collabora.com>

Let's use lowercase for them, since we will use uppercase for
anchors as is already the case in channels.yaml and sources.yaml.

Signed-off-by: Dylan Aïssi <dylan.aissi@collabora.com>

No need to compute delta for this branch since we now focus on v2025pre.
Moreover, v2025dev3 will be released and therefore frozen soon.

Signed-off-by: Dylan Aïssi <dylan.aissi@collabora.com>

Since bullseye-backports is going to close, we now
track bookworm for v2023 which still provides 6.1.x.

Signed-off-by: Dylan Aïssi <dylan.aissi@collabora.com>

Updates from backports, testing or unstable are made on
a case-by-case basis, and should be triggered automatically.

Signed-off-by: Dylan Aïssi <dylan.aissi@collabora.com>

Signed-off-by: Dylan Aïssi <dylan.aissi@collabora.com>

Signed-off-by: Dylan Aïssi <dylan.aissi@collabora.com>

buster is no longer tracked, and currently only debian/bullseye-backports
is used.

Signed-off-by: Dylan Aïssi <dylan.aissi@collabora.com>

Initial versions of these packages were uploaded with an incorrect
packaging revision. The new uploads have a correct version, but git
still has the old and wrong tags which confuses the dashboard.

Signed-off-by: Dylan Aïssi <dylan.aissi@collabora.com>

Dylan Aïssi authored 1 year ago and Walter Lozano committed 1 year ago

Packages versions coming from Debian are correctly parsed, so we don't have to
whitelist them, however in Apertis we use the ~v202X suffix which is to
misinterpreted by dashboard and lead to confusion when comparing versions.
For example, the dashboard the of downstream complains about:

Version in apertis/v2023/5.2.5~ds0-1+apertis0 is higher than version 5.2.5~ds0-1+apertis0~v2023 in upstream apertis/v2023

Which is true, but due to our workflow, the version apertis/v2023/5.2.5~ds0-1+apertis0
should not land in v2023 this is the reason of why we add the problematic
suffix allowing us to backport targeted changes to a previous release.
Adding the logic in the dashboard to correctly interpret the ~v202X is
not trivial, so for now we can teach it to ignore some versions.

Signed-off-by: Dylan Aïssi <dylan.aissi@collabora.com>

Signed-off-by: Dylan Aïssi <dylan.aissi@collabora.com>

Signed-off-by: Dylan Aïssi <dylan.aissi@collabora.com>

Signed-off-by: Dylan Aïssi <dylan.aissi@collabora.com>

The version of this tool used in Apertis is frozen
due to the upstream license change (to GPL-3), so
no need to run uscan since we know this is outdated version
on purpose.

Signed-off-by: Dylan Aïssi <dylan.aissi@collabora.com>

Dylan Aïssi authored 1 year ago and Walter Lozano committed 1 year ago

Sometimes, we need to backport a package version to a previous
Apertis release. But, a fast-forward backport is not always
possible as some changes may have occurred that are not suitable
for previous Apertis releases (like a change in debian/apertis/component
or debian/apertis/copyright needs to be refreshed with a different
version or the toolchain). In order to keep the git history linear,
while doing the backport, unsuitable changes are reverted and a
suffix like "~v2023" is used for versioning.

Because this unsual workflow is a bit tricky, it's not possible
to teach the dashboard about this suffix which makes it complaning
for "Mismatch between OBS XXX~v2023 and Git XXX".

Signed-off-by: Dylan Aïssi <dylan.aissi@collabora.com>

Both scripts packaging-updates and packaging-check-invariants
contain quite long lists of packages to ignore. This makes both
scripts and lists a bit difficult to read. Instead move the lists
into a specific file at data/whitelists.yaml. This should make
maintenance easier.

Signed-off-by: Dylan Aïssi <dylan.aissi@collabora.com>