Romain d'Alverny a écrit :
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 23:41, Maarten Vanraes
<maarten.vanr...@gmail.com> wrote:
imo, it could be used into mageia-app-db, allthough the purposes are a bit
different.
So it should be a separate component.
however, if we plan on using ldap to store the maintainership (it would be
more like groups for each package and people being member of it...), then
perhaps it should be in catdap.
I'm not sure this should be put into the LDAP, but I may be wrong. The
data model is likely to change often enough (even if not a lot) and
queries are likely to be frequent enought, to justify a separate,
simple db/app for that. But here again, I may not have all the infos.
however, we will have need of this soon; and it should also take into account
co-maintainers...
That's the group thing, yes (be it explicit or implicit).
Romain
Why not have a field for primary/secondary maintainer ?
By default, the first maintainer would be primary, subsequent
maintainers secondary.
This field being changable as desired.
That way, there is total flexability to have whatever mix of
primary/secondary maintainers the group of packagers for a particular
package wishes.
I suspect that it would be better to have a separate database for this
than mageia-app-db, to avoid contamination of errors, etc.
By keeping it separate, the packagers would have total control to
maintain the list according to what is actually packaged by Mageia.
Note that mageia-app-db will probably be listing 3rd party packages, not
carried by mageia.
In any case, it would be better to have a separate table for packager info.
my 2 cents :)
André
