Re: Re:%20Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote: > The proposal was to check based the Maintainer/Uploader field of the > previous .dsc upload to unstable/experimental, and presumably doing the > same thing for the DM-Upload-Allowed: field (or whatever it's called). > > > (This doesn't address the case of multiple DM listed in Uploaders but it's > > certainly not a case that I'd worry about) > > It doesn't allow for some people to be listed in the "Maintainer:" or > "Uploaders:" field of a "DM-Upload: okay" package who aren't allowed to > maintain and upload the package... Note that if we're going this way, we might as well explicitely list the DM that can upload in the new field. Or we might rename "Uploaders" in "Co-Maintainers" and use Uploaders for what it's really supposed to mean. :-) Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re:%20Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 09:32:59AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > The easiest way to avoid that problem would be to require a new field in > > the package "DM-Upload: okay" to allow DM uploads, as well as an entry > > in the Maintainer:/Uploaders: field. [...] > Agreed. However, you need to check that field on the latest version in the > target suite of the upload and not in the .dsc upload. The proposal was to check based the Maintainer/Uploader field of the previous .dsc upload to unstable/experimental, and presumably doing the same thing for the DM-Upload-Allowed: field (or whatever it's called). > (This doesn't address the case of multiple DM listed in Uploaders but it's > certainly not a case that I'd worry about) It doesn't allow for some people to be listed in the "Maintainer:" or "Uploaders:" field of a "DM-Upload: okay" package who aren't allowed to maintain and upload the package... Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re:%20Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 10:22:48AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > > * Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070625 20:45]: > > > You're already doing that in the sense that > > > uploading such a package already instructs the BTS to forwards filed > > > bugs to that person. > > For that there luckily is pts subscription available. (So those bugs > > cannot be hidden by closing them before I see them in the sponsored > > section on my qa.debian.org/developer.php list). > > At least for me the current proposal would make deciding to sponsor > > something much harder. > > The easiest way to avoid that problem would be to require a new field in > the package "DM-Upload: okay" to allow DM uploads, as well as an entry > in the Maintainer:/Uploaders: field. That way sponsoring as is currently > done means exactly what it currently means, but adding an extra field > to the control file allows the non-DD maintainer to upload directly. Agreed. However, you need to check that field on the latest version in the target suite of the upload and not in the .dsc upload. (This doesn't address the case of multiple DM listed in Uploaders but it's certainly not a case that I'd worry about) Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re:%20Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 10:22:48AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070625 20:45]: > > You're already doing that in the sense that > > uploading such a package already instructs the BTS to forwards filed > > bugs to that person. > For that there luckily is pts subscription available. (So those bugs > cannot be hidden by closing them before I see them in the sponsored > section on my qa.debian.org/developer.php list). > At least for me the current proposal would make deciding to sponsor > something much harder. The easiest way to avoid that problem would be to require a new field in the package "DM-Upload: okay" to allow DM uploads, as well as an entry in the Maintainer:/Uploaders: field. That way sponsoring as is currently done means exactly what it currently means, but adding an extra field to the control file allows the non-DD maintainer to upload directly. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re:%20Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal
* Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070625 20:45]: > You're already doing that in the sense that > uploading such a package already instructs the BTS to forwards filed > bugs to that person. For that there luckily is pts subscription available. (So those bugs cannot be hidden by closing them before I see them in the sponsored section on my qa.debian.org/developer.php list). At least for me the current proposal would make deciding to sponsor something much harder. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re:%20Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 05:13:35PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > To the DM proposers: Does the suggestion in the current form mean that I > will no longer be allowed to sponser anyone out of fear he might become > DM and thus said he is capable enough to maintain this type of package. If you upload a package marked "Maintainer: J Random Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>", then you're asserting J Random Hacker is capable of maintaining that package. You're already doing that in the sense that uploading such a package already instructs the BTS to forwards filed bugs to that person. If you don't want to do that, you can still sponsor an upload from J Random Hacker by having J only be mentioned in the changelog (and/or README, etc), and not the control file. > Or does the advocate imply that the DM is capable of maintaining all > types of packages. DMs upload priveleges are on a per-source-package basis as per the proposal. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re:%20Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal
On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 12:53 +0200, Benjamin BAYART wrote: > Le Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 09:50:37PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG: > > > > > Yes. So, the right solution if I want to help is: > > > - first I spend a lot of time proving that I'm skilled enough to read > > > crazy licenses in a language that is not mine > > > > No, you only have to do this if you want to package software and upload > > it into the archive without review. > > If you read back to the DM proposal, it is clearly stated that a DM is > not allowed to upload a NEW package. So, the approach is not wanting to > package&upload anything but a given package. That doesn't change the question about licensing. No DD can upload a NEW package without independent licensing review; but even an upgrade can involve license changes, and a DD must be competent to evaluate them. Thomas signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Re:%20Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal
* Benjamin BAYART <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070625 13:14]: > If you read back to the DM proposal, it is clearly stated that a DM is > not allowed to upload a NEW package. So, the approach is not wanting to > package&upload anything but a given package. But licenses are nothing fixed. Upstream can decide to use an other license. There might be new code included from other authors or projects under a different license and so on. To the DM proposers: Does the suggestion in the current form mean that I will no longer be allowed to sponser anyone out of fear he might become DM and thus said he is capable enough to maintain this type of package. Or does the advocate imply that the DM is capable of maintaining all types of packages. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re:%20Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal
Le Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 09:50:37PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG: > > > Yes. So, the right solution if I want to help is: > > - first I spend a lot of time proving that I'm skilled enough to read > > crazy licenses in a language that is not mine > > No, you only have to do this if you want to package software and upload > it into the archive without review. If you read back to the DM proposal, it is clearly stated that a DM is not allowed to upload a NEW package. So, the approach is not wanting to package&upload anything but a given package. For that, the tricky questions are examined by the DD who decide, or not, to allow a DM to maintain it. > > - then I spend another lot of time proving I'm skilled enough to package > > complex stuff unrelated to my current skills (say python stuff, which > > I know nothing about, or trying to have a library not breaking > > everything in an upgrade) > > No, you only have to do this if you want to package software and upload > it into the archive without review. Once more, it is the difference between a DD and a DM: a DD is supposed to be skilled enough to package/upload any kind of software (at least in theory), a DM is supposed to be skilled enough to package/upload the software that a DD sponsored him on. So, yes, a DM is a kind of a subclass of a DD, at least as I understood it. I did understand that: - anyone may ask a DD to sponsor an upload on a precise version of a precise package; - a DM may ask a DD to sponsor him to gain the maintainance of a precise package, here the DD takes care of checking the initial packaging, the licenses, and so on; - a DD ask no sponsor for nothing, he is supposed to be skilled enough to do what is required for the well of Debian. For me, that sounds reasonable, and that would help Debian for few-used package. That is of course almost useless for large scale packages or projects, but can be of great interest for isolated packages. One can assume that a DM is a good willing guy, and that if there is a large scale change in his package, he will probably ask for help from his sponsor (or from somebody, at least), and that if he does'nt he should be dropped his DM status. Which is what is stated in the original proposal. Regards, Benjamin. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re:%20Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal
> Yes. So, the right solution if I want to help is: > - first I spend a lot of time proving that I'm skilled enough to read > crazy licenses in a language that is not mine No, you only have to do this if you want to package software and upload it into the archive without review. > - then I spend another lot of time proving I'm skilled enough to package > complex stuff unrelated to my current skills (say python stuff, which > I know nothing about, or trying to have a library not breaking > everything in an upgrade) No, you only have to do this if you want to package software and upload it into the archive without review. > - then I am granted the right to help fixing the bug I found a few > months ago No, you don't have to do that to help fix the bug. To help fix the bug, all you have to do is post a patch on the bug log. If you think the patch is being neglected, ask about it on debian-qa. Thomas signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
