Maciej Bliziński <[email protected]> writes: > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:20:10AM +0200, Peter FELECAN wrote: >> Maciej Bliziński <[email protected]> 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.
In those cases the uploader doesn't matter because the transitions are done homogeneously. >> >> >> 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. :-( Every information sent by the tool? Or just specifically the user name? >> >> > 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. >> > >> > 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. What kind of user name are we storing in the package? It seems to me that is the one that I put in .garrc, e.g.: # Data for pkginfo SPKG_PACKAGER = Peter Felecan SPKG_EMAIL = [email protected] What are the default values for this? -- Peter _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
