"Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński" <[email protected]> writes: > 2013/4/12 Peter FELECAN <[email protected]>: >> In the pkginfo file we have this: >> >> VENDOR=http://leocad.googlecode.com/files/ packaged for CSW by Peter Felecan >> [email protected] >> >> We should have: >> >> VENDOR=http://leocad.googlecode.com/files/ >> [email protected] >> ... >> 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 <[email protected]>, Jane Dow <[email protected]> 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 _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
