Re: all new Debian diagram - now with less chaos!
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 07:34:27AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: * Kevin Mark [Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:09:03 -0500]: And I've never read ITO as a tag for orphaning bug. Either one mails to -devel (or wherever) saying that they intend to give away or orphan some packages, but this isn't a bug, just conversation. In the BTS, I think the tag is simply O. so, there is no 'bug' to the bts to orphan a package, simply a note to debian-devel? So folks are expected to troll it to pickup packages? ok. I will change the ITO to 'read about orphanded package on debian-devel'. Please compare [1], [2], and [3]. Basically: 1. maintainer writes -devel 2. maintainer writes -devel and files RFAs 3. maintainer submits O: bug against wnnp and CC's -devel [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/02/msg00346.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/02/msg00534.html [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/02/msg00676.html But orphaning bugs can be filed without sending mail to -devel, though this makes them less effective. Hi Adeodato, thanks for the info. I tried to add it. although, now I am getting confused about the difference between a debian developer and a debian maintainer. I labeled most items with 'DD' thinking that's who did stuff. More things to research. see you in the funny pages, Kev -- counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted! (__) (oo) /--\/ / ||| * /\---/\ ~~ ~~ Have you mooed today?... signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: all new Debian diagram - now with less chaos!
Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 01:11:33PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: h. There are more rules as to when packages migrate from unstable to testing. i. You use both meanings of priority (changelog and control) without making it clear which one is meant. Furthermore, for testing propagation i'ts urgency that matters, isn't it? Hi Frank, isnt that addressed by the tag Urgency: Low|Medium|High? In the white box between the green testing and unstable boxes, the text says: unstable packages propagate to testing based upon priority tags and no additional RC bugs. I think this should be based upon the urgency tag and I am not aware of any influence of the priority field from debian/control on the testing transition (except that base might be frozen earlier), and I am also not aware of a priority field in debian/changelog. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: all new Debian diagram - now with less chaos!
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Kevin Mark [Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:09:03 -0500]: so, there is no 'bug' to the bts to orphan a package, simply a note to debian-devel? So folks are expected to troll it to pickup packages? ok. I will change the ITO to 'read about orphanded package on debian-devel'. Please compare [1], [2], and [3]. Basically: 1. maintainer writes -devel 2. maintainer writes -devel and files RFAs 3. maintainer submits O: bug against wnnp and CC's -devel That is what I wanted to say. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: all new Debian diagram - now with less chaos!
Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: although, now I am getting confused about the difference between a debian developer and a debian maintainer. I labeled most items with 'DD' thinking that's who did stuff. More things to research. The maintainer is the guy (or entity) who is listed in the Maintainer: field of debian/control, and who gets all the mail for the package¹. A debian developer is anybody with an account @debian.org, who can do uploads to the archive. A Debian developer need not be the maintainer of any package (doing mainly QA work, or buildd administration, or whatever), and a package maintainer need not be a Debian developer: They can have their packages uploaded by a developer who reviewed the package, but doesn't want to do all the work. Regards, Frank ¹others can subscribe to this, too, via the package tracking system -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: all new Debian diagram - now with less chaos!
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 08:04:21AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: snip Hi Martin, source package: dsc + (diff) + orig.tar.gz binary package: deb source upload: changes + list of files therein I added some of this to my diagram. not 100% yet. snip nah, we turn software into debian packages by debianising them, and then using dpkg-genchanges to create the changes file. Please read its manpage, in particular about the -sa, -sd, and -si options to see which files the changes file will list. the upload consists of the source package and the binary package, unless the debian revision is greater than 1, in which case the orig.tar.gz file is not included. I added some of this, too. h. There are more rules as to when packages migrate from unstable to testing. ACK. I'm not familar with all possibilities and also not sure how much space it would take to include it. maybe a 'subprocess' box? you could just say meets requirements for testing snip To get our graphs onto www.debian.org, I assume we file bugs against that pseudo-package. there is an existing package that could include these? or to make an ITP? www.debian.org is a pseudo package: http://www.debian.org/Bugs/pseudo-packages I saw this[1]. So the bug would be something like: www.debian.org: needs development diagram from package life cycle (and oh BTW, I have one here[2] and here[3]!) [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=www.debian.org [2] http://kmark.pipeline.com/newdebian.png [2] http://kmark.pipeline.com/newdebian.dia -Kev -- counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted! (__) (oo) /--\/ / ||| * /\---/\ ~~ ~~ Have you mooed today?... signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: all new Debian diagram - now with less chaos!
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 10:53:28AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: although, now I am getting confused about the difference between a debian developer and a debian maintainer. I labeled most items with 'DD' thinking that's who did stuff. More things to research. The maintainer is the guy (or entity) who is listed in the Maintainer: field of debian/control, and who gets all the mail for the package¹. A debian developer is anybody with an account @debian.org, who can do uploads to the archive. A Debian developer need not be the maintainer of any package (doing mainly QA work, or buildd administration, or whatever), and a package maintainer need not be a Debian developer: They can have their packages uploaded by a developer who reviewed the package, but doesn't want to do all the work. Regards, Frank ¹others can subscribe to this, too, via the package tracking system -- Hi Frank, I have incorparated your info. In my diagram, most of the tasks are done by maintainers and the buildd stuff would be done by developers. I have not yet added QA, ftpmaster or security stuff. -Kev -- counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted! (__) (oo) /--\/ / ||| * /\---/\ ~~ ~~ Have you mooed today?... signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: all new Debian diagram - now with less chaos!
Hi Kev, list! On Tuesday 15 February 2005 08:27, Kevin Mark wrote: after my initial work on a diagram, and the comments and the work of madduck, I had some time to redo my diagram to produce a totally new concept. any comment appreciated. Really nice and clean. Great to see such fundamental processes documented properly! Some things though, perhaps someone can help me out here: * buildd: there is more than one of them and I always thought the results are checked (and signed) manually by the buildd admins? * propagation from experimental to unstable: I always thought that required a re-upload? * testing packages propagate to stable is perhaps better called release: testing becomes new-stable? Regards, David
Re: all new Debian diagram - now with less chaos!
Hi Kevin, Great work! I am glad to see you got down with dia; I love that tool. Here are some comments: a. I am not sure what the process realm is. b. Developers do not tag bugs, they sign packages. Is that what you meant? Also, note that at the moment, most only sign source packages and binary uploads, not the binary packages themselves. c. Upstream is not really a repository, is it? d. I am missing the link between buildd and unstable. They get the orig.tar.gz from unstable for any uploads in incoming that do not include the tarball. e. I think it's M. Schulze, not Shultze. f. Sven's name has an Umlaut; here, to cut-n-paste: Müller g. users processes should be users' processes, though I think you may want to use another word. Like plain users or user systems may be better. h. There are more rules as to when packages migrate from unstable to testing. i. You use both meanings of priority (changelog and control) without making it clear which one is meant. j. updates propagate, not updates propagates. I know you are talking about the collection, but it sounds weird. That's it for now. To get our graphs onto www.debian.org, I assume we file bugs against that pseudo-package. Let me know when you are ready, then we can submit one bug report together. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: all new Debian diagram - now with less chaos!
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 10:29:37AM +0100, David Schmitt wrote: Hi Kev, list! On Tuesday 15 February 2005 08:27, Kevin Mark wrote: after my initial work on a diagram, and the comments and the work of madduck, I had some time to redo my diagram to produce a totally new concept. any comment appreciated. Really nice and clean. Great to see such fundamental processes documented properly! Some things though, perhaps someone can help me out here: Thanks! * buildd: there is more than one of them and I always thought the results are checked (and signed) manually by the buildd admins? someone just emailed me about this. * propagation from experimental to unstable: I always thought that required a re-upload? see above. * testing packages propagate to stable is perhaps better called release: testing becomes new-stable? see above. cheers, Kev -- counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted! (__) (oo) /--\/ / ||| * /\---/\ ~~ ~~ Have you mooed today?... signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: all new Debian diagram - now with less chaos!
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: h. There are more rules as to when packages migrate from unstable to testing. i. You use both meanings of priority (changelog and control) without making it clear which one is meant. Furthermore, for testing propagation i'ts urgency that matters, isn't it? And I've never read ITO as a tag for orphaning bug. Either one mails to -devel (or wherever) saying that they intend to give away or orphan some packages, but this isn't a bug, just conversation. In the BTS, I think the tag is simply O. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: all new Debian diagram - now with less chaos!
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 02:27 -0500, Kevin Mark wrote: Hi debianista, after my initial work on a diagram, and the comments and the work of madduck, I had some time to redo my diagram to produce a totally new concept. any comment appreciated. http://kmark.home.pipeline.com/newdebian.png http://kmark.home.pipeline.com/newdebian.dia Not to find fault with something that will clear up much confusion in the Debian Sphere of Being, but I am wonder where the contributions back to upstream are in this picture? Where should it go? I don't know. Debian is one of the largest contributors to upstream(s), with bug-fixes, feature adds and improvements in code cleanliness. As well as being upstream for many things. Also, shouldn't it also be noted the distributions that are based on Debian that give-back to upstream (like Ubuntu and the plugin-dev and pmount thing). Given I don't know if it warrants, as it would be a user submission with patch to the DBTS. Other than that, I think its very good looking, I don't have the knowledge to judge whether it is accurate of not. -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] The technology that is Stronger, better, faster: Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: all new Debian diagram - now with less chaos!
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 11:24:18AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: Hi Kevin, Great work! I am glad to see you got down with dia; I love that tool. Here are some comments: Its cool that it exports to xfig as a way to use both tools. a. I am not sure what the process realm is. ACK. renamed it. b. Developers do not tag bugs, they sign packages. Is that what you meant? Also, note that at the moment, most only sign source packages and binary uploads, not the binary packages themselves. NACK. you lost me. this is a gap in my knowlege. differentiate source package, binary upload, and binary package. where do they go? what do developers do? who creates source package, binary uploads and binary pacakges? c. Upstream is not really a repository, is it? ACK. changed it. d. I am missing the link between buildd and unstable. They get the orig.tar.gz from unstable for any uploads in incoming that do not include the tarball. e. I think it's M. Schulze, not Shultze. ACK. f. Sven's name has an Umlaut; here, to cut-n-paste: Müller ACK. I still dont know how to fiddle with keymaps, input methods or such things to get these! g. users processes should be users' processes, though I think you may want to use another word. Like plain users or user systems may be better. ACK. h. There are more rules as to when packages migrate from unstable to testing. ACK. I'm not familar with all possibilities and also not sure how much space it would take to include it. maybe a 'subprocess' box? i. You use both meanings of priority (changelog and control) without making it clear which one is meant. NACK. I only used this word once in referense to high, medium, low migration of packages from unstable to testing. j. updates propagate, not updates propagates. I know you are talking about the collection, but it sounds weird. ACK. That's it for now. To get our graphs onto www.debian.org, I assume we file bugs against that pseudo-package. there is an existing package that could include these? or to make an ITP? Someone in the 'eyecatcher' project said these may be helpful. Let me know when you are ready, then we can submit one bug report together. Cool! Kev -- counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted! (__) (oo) /--\/ / ||| * /\---/\ ~~ ~~ Have you mooed today?... signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: all new Debian diagram - now with less chaos!
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 01:11:33PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: h. There are more rules as to when packages migrate from unstable to testing. i. You use both meanings of priority (changelog and control) without making it clear which one is meant. Furthermore, for testing propagation i'ts urgency that matters, isn't it? Hi Frank, isnt that addressed by the tag Urgency: Low|Medium|High? And I've never read ITO as a tag for orphaning bug. Either one mails to -devel (or wherever) saying that they intend to give away or orphan some packages, but this isn't a bug, just conversation. In the BTS, I think the tag is simply O. so, there is no 'bug' to the bts to orphan a package, simply a note to debian-devel? So folks are expected to troll it to pickup packages? ok. I will change the ITO to 'read about orphanded package on debian-devel'. -Kev -- counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted! (__) (oo) /--\/ / ||| * /\---/\ ~~ ~~ Have you mooed today?... signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: all new Debian diagram - now with less chaos!
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 05:34:38PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote: On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 02:27 -0500, Kevin Mark wrote: Hi debianista, after my initial work on a diagram, and the comments and the work of madduck, I had some time to redo my diagram to produce a totally new concept. any comment appreciated. http://kmark.home.pipeline.com/newdebian.png http://kmark.home.pipeline.com/newdebian.dia Not to find fault with something that will clear up much confusion in the Debian Sphere of Being, but I am wonder where the contributions back to upstream are in this picture? Hi Greg, in my original diagram (http://kmark.home.pipeline.com/debian.png), I included an indication of that. I will be including it in this one, but have not done so yet. Where should it go? I don't know. Debian is one of the largest contributors to upstream(s), with bug-fixes, feature adds and improvements in code cleanliness. As well as being upstream for many things. Also, shouldn't it also be noted the distributions that are based on Debian that give-back to upstream (like Ubuntu and the plugin-dev and pmount thing). woun't that be out of the scope of my diagram? Given I don't know if it warrants, as it would be a user submission with patch to the DBTS. Other than that, I think its very good looking, I don't have the knowledge to judge whether it is accurate of not. -- thanks for the input. cheers, Kev -- counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted! (__) (oo) /--\/ / ||| * /\---/\ ~~ ~~ Have you mooed today?... signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: all new Debian diagram - now with less chaos!
* Kevin Mark [Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:09:03 -0500]: And I've never read ITO as a tag for orphaning bug. Either one mails to -devel (or wherever) saying that they intend to give away or orphan some packages, but this isn't a bug, just conversation. In the BTS, I think the tag is simply O. so, there is no 'bug' to the bts to orphan a package, simply a note to debian-devel? So folks are expected to troll it to pickup packages? ok. I will change the ITO to 'read about orphanded package on debian-devel'. Please compare [1], [2], and [3]. Basically: 1. maintainer writes -devel 2. maintainer writes -devel and files RFAs 3. maintainer submits O: bug against wnnp and CC's -devel [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/02/msg00346.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/02/msg00534.html [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/02/msg00676.html But orphaning bugs can be filed without sending mail to -devel, though this makes them less effective. HTH, -- Adeodato Simó EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621 Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud: after a while, you realize the pig is enjoying it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: all new Debian diagram - now with less chaos!
also sprach Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.02.15.1314 +0100]: b. Developers do not tag bugs, they sign packages. Is that what you meant? Also, note that at the moment, most only sign source packages and binary uploads, not the binary packages themselves. NACK. you lost me. this is a gap in my knowlege. differentiate source package, binary upload, and binary package. source package: dsc + (diff) + orig.tar.gz binary package: deb source upload: changes + list of files therein where do they go? all to incoming. what do developers do? twiddle our thumbs? nah, we turn software into debian packages by debianising them, and then using dpkg-genchanges to create the changes file. Please read its manpage, in particular about the -sa, -sd, and -si options to see which files the changes file will list. the upload consists of the source package and the binary package, unless the debian revision is greater than 1, in which case the orig.tar.gz file is not included. h. There are more rules as to when packages migrate from unstable to testing. ACK. I'm not familar with all possibilities and also not sure how much space it would take to include it. maybe a 'subprocess' box? you could just say meets requirements for testing i. You use both meanings of priority (changelog and control) without making it clear which one is meant. NACK. I only used this word once in referense to high, medium, low migration of packages from unstable to testing. yes, and as someone else pointed out, this should be urgency. sorry, i thought you used it elsewhere too. To get our graphs onto www.debian.org, I assume we file bugs against that pseudo-package. there is an existing package that could include these? or to make an ITP? www.debian.org is a pseudo package: http://www.debian.org/Bugs/pseudo-packages -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: all new Debian diagram - now with less chaos!
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: And I've never read ITO as a tag for orphaning bug. This would be RFA? Greetings Bernd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
