[csw-maintainers] NMUs, non-maintainer uploads

[Maciej Bliziński]

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.

> >> >> 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. :-(

> >> > 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.

Maciej
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20130522/9296369e/attachment.asc>