[csw-maintainers] NMUs, non-maintainer uploads

[Peter FELECAN]

"Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński" <maciej at opencsw.org> writes:

> 2013/4/12 Peter FELECAN <pfelecan at opencsw.org>:
>> In the pkginfo file we have this:
>>
>> VENDOR=http://leocad.googlecode.com/files/ packaged for CSW by Peter Felecan
>> EMAIL=pfelecan at opencsw.org
>>
>> We should have:
>>
>> VENDOR=http://leocad.googlecode.com/files/
>> EMAIL=pfelecan at opencsw.org
>> ...
>> OPENCSW_MAINTAINERS=Peter Felecan, Dagobert Michelsen
>>
>> The last variable contain the values of the multi-valuated attribute
>> "maintainer". The user uploading the package is the value of the
>> attribute "NMU" --- when I'm writing about "attribute" I'm thinking to
>> the packages database schema.
>
> One more distinction: The user who uploads the package doesn't have to
> be the same user who ran "mgar package". So we have:
>
> 1. users who are long-term maintainers of a given package

These are in variable containing the list and which is in the recipe,
i.e. Makefile and used to generate the corresponding information in the
pkginfo file.

> 2. user who ran "mgar package"

Who cares? But if you find it useful, why not.

> 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.

>
>> 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?

>> Does it seems reasonable?
>>
>> What thinks our data-base czar but not less enlightened colleague? :-)
>
> Looks like nobody wants to claim the title of DB czar! So I'll chime in.

De facto.

> 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.

> One more thing: different people have different attitudes towards
> different packages. There are packages that are simple libraries,
> there's little technical decisions involved there, e.g. Perl or Python
> modules. You just build them, push them out, done. But then there are
> larger packages, such as Perl or Python themselves, where there are
> big decisions involved. For example, the horrible patch[1] for Python
> that has screwed us up big time. Library rebuilds - I don't care,
> anyone who wants can rebuild them. But screwing up Python like in [1]
> ‒ over my dead body. So I'd put my name up as the Python package
> maintainer, but not for Python modules. The package's maintainer list
> has to be optional.

Agree 100%
-- 
Peter