<div dir="ltr">What about an entry in the Makefile along the lines of "MAINTAINER_LOCK = maintainer_uname" that once set prevents anyone else from uploading a package unless its cleared by an authorized admin. This would put it in the maintainers hands to lock the stuff they want locked. I would still like the ability to re-build others packages as a learning experience and potentially allow me to create private copies of packages with different choices for personal use.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Peter FELECAN <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pfelecan@opencsw.org" target="_blank">pfelecan@opencsw.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">"Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński" <<a href="mailto:maciej@opencsw.org">maciej@opencsw.org</a>> writes:<br>
<br>
> 2013/4/12 Peter FELECAN <<a href="mailto:pfelecan@opencsw.org">pfelecan@opencsw.org</a>>:<br>
>> In the pkginfo file we have this:<br>
>><br>
>> VENDOR=<a href="http://leocad.googlecode.com/files/" target="_blank">http://leocad.googlecode.com/files/</a> packaged for CSW by Peter Felecan<br>
>> EMAIL=<a href="mailto:pfelecan@opencsw.org">pfelecan@opencsw.org</a><br>
>><br>
>> We should have:<br>
>><br>
>> VENDOR=<a href="http://leocad.googlecode.com/files/" target="_blank">http://leocad.googlecode.com/files/</a><br>
>> EMAIL=<a href="mailto:pfelecan@opencsw.org">pfelecan@opencsw.org</a><br>
>> ...<br>
>> OPENCSW_MAINTAINERS=Peter Felecan, Dagobert Michelsen<br>
>><br>
>> The last variable contain the values of the multi-valuated attribute<br>
>> "maintainer". The user uploading the package is the value of the<br>
>> attribute "NMU" --- when I'm writing about "attribute" I'm thinking to<br>
>> the packages database schema.<br>
><br>
> One more distinction: The user who uploads the package doesn't have to<br>
> be the same user who ran "mgar package". So we have:<br>
><br>
> 1. users who are long-term maintainers of a given package<br>
<br>
</div>These are in variable containing the list and which is in the recipe,<br>
i.e. Makefile and used to generate the corresponding information in the<br>
pkginfo file.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> 2. user who ran "mgar package"<br>
<br>
</div>Who cares? But if you find it useful, why not.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> 3. user who uploaded the package (ran csw-upload-pkg)<br>
<br>
</div>This is more important that one who runs mgar and should be recorded by<br>
the upload process.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
><br>
>> The variable in the pkginfo file is generated at packaging time.<br>
>><br>
>> The attributes are valuated at upload time.<br>
><br>
> We can no longer modify the package contents at upload time, and I'm<br>
> guessing we want everything to be inside the package.<br>
<br>
</div>At upload time, the database's attributes are valuated from what's in the<br>
package, isn't it?<br>
<div class="im"><br>
>> Does it seems reasonable?<br>
>><br>
>> What thinks our data-base czar but not less enlightened colleague? :-)<br>
><br>
> Looks like nobody wants to claim the title of DB czar! So I'll chime in.<br>
<br>
</div>De facto.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> The list of maintainers needs to be in one of the pkginfo fields,<br>
> that's simple. But I think it should be a list of user names, or a<br>
> list of valid (rich) email addresses:<br>
><br>
> OPENCSW_MAINTAINERS=joe, jane<br>
><br>
> or<br>
><br>
> OPENCSW_MAINTAINERS=Joe Doe <<a href="mailto:joe@example.com">joe@example.com</a>>, Jane Dow <<a href="mailto:jane@example.com">jane@example.com</a>><br>
<br>
</div>Too complex from my POV but why not.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> One more thing: different people have different attitudes towards<br>
> different packages. There are packages that are simple libraries,<br>
> there's little technical decisions involved there, e.g. Perl or Python<br>
> modules. You just build them, push them out, done. But then there are<br>
> larger packages, such as Perl or Python themselves, where there are<br>
> big decisions involved. For example, the horrible patch[1] for Python<br>
> that has screwed us up big time. Library rebuilds - I don't care,<br>
> anyone who wants can rebuild them. But screwing up Python like in [1]<br>
> ‒ over my dead body. So I'd put my name up as the Python package<br>
> maintainer, but not for Python modules. The package's maintainer list<br>
> has to be optional.<br>
<br>
</div>Agree 100%<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">--<br>
Peter<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
maintainers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:maintainers@lists.opencsw.org">maintainers@lists.opencsw.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers" target="_blank">https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers</a><br>
.:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>