[csw-maintainers] NMUs, non-maintainer uploads

[Peter FELECAN]

Maciej Bliziński <maciej at opencsw.org> writes:

> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:20:10AM +0200, Peter FELECAN wrote:
>> Maciej Bliziński <maciej at opencsw.org> writes:
>> 
>> >> > 3. user who uploaded the package (ran csw-upload-pkg)
>> >> 
>> >> This is more important that one who runs mgar and should be recorded by
>> >> the upload process.
>> >
>> > We have no tracking of the user who ran csw-upload-pkg. I tried to
>> > implement it, but our proxy stands in the way, stripping away
>> > REMOTE_USER.
>> >
>> > https://github.com/opencsw/gar/blob/ca2fa7fa5327bbda182201ad1f37ecc5a9979567/lib/web/releases_web.py#L208
>> >
>> > (I'm giving links to github, because the sf.net code browser is too
>> > slow.)
>> 
>> I don't see why somebody runs mgar and he's not the one uploading it;
>> yes, there is the possibility to have an automatic builder but we don't
>> have one yet. If there is really no solution around the proxy issue then
>> consider that the upload-er is the same as the "magar-er".
>
> One example could be catalog integrations. Maintainers upload to the
> unstable catalog, but when packages migrate from unstable to testing,
> this is usually done by someone else. For the kiel catalog, mgar-er and
> uploader are almost always two different people.

In those cases the uploader doesn't matter because the transitions are
done homogeneously.

>> >> >> The variable in the pkginfo file is generated at packaging time.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The attributes are valuated at upload time.
>> >> >
>> >> > We can no longer modify the package contents at upload time, and I'm
>> >> > guessing we want everything to be inside the package.
>> >> 
>> >> At upload time, the database's attributes are valuated from what's in the
>> >> package, isn't it?
>> >
>> > Yes. However, what we have in the package, is the information about who
>> > ran 'mgar package'.
>> 
>> And there is no information sent by csw-upload-pkg? Hmm...
>
> There absolutely is.
>
> And it gets nuked by the proxy. :-(

Every information sent by the tool? Or just specifically the user name?

>> >> > The list of maintainers needs to be in one of the pkginfo fields,
>> >> > that's simple. But I think it should be a list of user names, or a
>> >> > list of valid (rich) email addresses:
>> >> >
>> >> > OPENCSW_MAINTAINERS=joe, jane
>> >> >
>> >> > or
>> >> >
>> >> > OPENCSW_MAINTAINERS=Joe Doe <joe at example.com>, Jane Dow <jane at example.com>
>> >> 
>> >> Too complex from my POV but why not.
>> >
>> > So you're thinking of associating 1 package with 1 name only?
>> 
>> No. I just considered the second form too complex, i.e., I prefer a
>> simple user list, without the e-mail address.
>
> This can get a little ambiguous, since we have a number of user
> namespaces:
>
> - buildfarm
> - mantis
> - sourceforge
>
> Usually buildfarm and mantis are in sync, but user names on sourceforge
> are very different, e.g. my sourceforge user name is wahwah. Full names
> make it clearer. But if we make it explicit that we mean e.g. buildfarm
> names, bare usernames should be sufficient.

What kind of user name are we storing in the package? It seems to me
that is the one that I put in .garrc, e.g.:

     # Data for pkginfo
     SPKG_PACKAGER   = Peter Felecan
     SPKG_EMAIL      = pfelecan at opencsw.org

What are the default values for this?
-- 
Peter