Re: Asking for DMUA: Yes while seeking first sponsor
Hi! Am 15.06.2010 21:08, schrieb Russ Allbery: The current DM implementation is weird in that it's dictated by a GR. It might be worth getting a ruling from the project secretary on whether we need another GR to change the details of it (or, better, to make the details of it up to existing core teams to implement). Interesting, GR 2007 003 mentions The initial policy for ...; the wording makes me think, that someone may change these policies (or why would they initial?) but it doesn't specify who may do so and to what extend... Best regards, Alexander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c1887f3.8010...@debian.org
Re: Asking for DMUA: Yes while seeking first sponsor
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl toli...@debian.org writes: Am 15.06.2010 21:08, schrieb Russ Allbery: The current DM implementation is weird in that it's dictated by a GR. It might be worth getting a ruling from the project secretary on whether we need another GR to change the details of it (or, better, to make the details of it up to existing core teams to implement). Interesting, GR 2007 003 mentions The initial policy for ...; the wording makes me think, that someone may change these policies (or why would they initial?) but it doesn't specify who may do so and to what extend... Yeah, I wish I'd been paying more attention at the time to suggest alternative wording, since the way that the GR is worded makes it very ambiguous how one might ever change the procedure. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87y6eex1zb@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: Asking for DMUA: Yes while seeking first sponsor
* Paul Wise p...@debian.org, 2010-06-15, 10:14: I'd personally like to see DMUA move from source packages to a mail bot or LDAP or something else. Same here. While I endorse the concept of Debian Maintainers, I am very unhappy with the way it is currently implemented. -- Jakub Wilk signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Asking for DMUA: Yes while seeking first sponsor
Le Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:57:57AM +0200, Jakub Wilk a écrit : * Paul Wise p...@debian.org, 2010-06-15, 10:14: I'd personally like to see DMUA move from source packages to a mail bot or LDAP or something else. Same here. While I endorse the concept of Debian Maintainers, I am very unhappy with the way it is currently implemented. Dear all, did the current implementation trigger any accident, or even a dangerous situation where an accident was avoided? This list is becomming quite high traffic with requests for reviewing whole packages. I prefer when the DM can upload soon, and correct imprefections by upload. Then this list can refocus on its original raison d'être, which is to ask questions about packaging when there is a doubt, instead of being an upload hub for packages that are not maintained in a team containing DDs. I think that being critical about his own packages is by far the most important skill for a DM and a DD. In the few cases where I sponsor packages unrelated to my main team (Debian Med, where we regulate upload rights through the Uploaders fields instead of the DMUA field, which is set to yes by default), I tend to grant upload rights as soon as the DM shows good signs of self-evaluation. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Illkirch, France -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100615092616.gb24...@kunpuu.plessy.org
Re: Asking for DMUA: Yes while seeking first sponsor
Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org writes: * Paul Wise p...@debian.org, 2010-06-15, 10:14: I'd personally like to see DMUA move from source packages to a mail bot or LDAP or something else. Same here. While I endorse the concept of Debian Maintainers, I am very unhappy with the way it is currently implemented. As a Debian Maintainer, I agree. Even if the maintainer doesn't want to subvert proper procedure, the ‘DM-Upload-Allowed’ field is an attractive nuisance. As a first-time maintainer, it's all too easy to think that setting that field to “Yes” is *helping* one's sponsor save time. The field should go away and be replaced with an out-of-band setting that only a sponsor can change. -- \“There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though | `\ nothing is a miracle. The other is as if everything is.” | _o__) —Albert Einstein | Ben Finney pgpZ6YaYnIWAq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Asking for DMUA: Yes while seeking first sponsor
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: The field should go away and be replaced with an out-of-band setting that only a sponsor can change. Looks like there is the possibility of changing this: Ganneff feel free to give us dak patches making DM saner. you will be heard. (from the #debian-mentors) -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktilohwy6xpiewnrvhzapo6pcjoqg3tzqyt0sp...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Asking for DMUA: Yes while seeking first sponsor
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:14:54 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl toli...@debian.org wrote: I noticed that recently some people seem to seek first time sponsors while asking for setting the DM-Upload-Allowed: yes flag at the very same time. This isn't the only misuse of DMUA that exists, some people set it in their package instead of asking the sponsor to set it. It's our duty to check if DMUA is set or not. Never, EVER, review a package only based on a changelog. If I am unhappy with DMUA for a specific maintainer+package pair, I talk to the maintainer, and tell her I can upload only without DMUA because I don't believe she is ready for unattended uploads. If she agrees, I simply drop that line from debian/control and upload the package -- otherwise she just goes and looks for another sponsor. If we all agree on being stricter about DMUA, she just won't get that flag, even when asking someone else. I don't see any flaw in the current process. Sponsors already take the burden of many things when uploading a package (license issues and dfsg-freeness come to mind), and checking DMUA is just one of them. Others go further and do not mention that in debian/changelog nor in their RFS mail. One of those sponsoring rules I try to enforce to people asking for uploads is: add a DMUA set in debian/changelog, and possibly something like ACKed by dapal. Checking the changelog is, once again, still our duty -- people looking for sponsors tipically are: 1) newbies -- and they don't know what to do, someone must instruct them on best practices -- that's why we're also mentors, 2) experienced packagers with no upload rights -- being experienced, just tell a word and they'll understand. So, there really is no flaw in the current process, IMO. Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Asking for DMUA: Yes while seeking first sponsor
[I am a DM] Hi there, Even this is against the spirit of Debian Maintainer Concept, I believe this is because people are pragmatic. Speaking of experience I had to re-upload 5 times the exact same packages (GDCM) because in between each upload: - HPPA uploaded a Java package with dangling symnlink, - arm/armel updated the java package and libraries moved around, - vtk upload a libvtk-java with dangling symlink, - cmake was uploaded with a broken findjni.cmake. ref: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=562775 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=579959 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=544674#115 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=544674#167 Thankfully I was under the debian-med umbrella, otherwise I would have gone mad, if every time I would have had to search for a DD. I completely understand when a package is being *first* uploaded the need for a DD to review it. What I do not understand is that I should go with this exact same process (which can takes a couple of days), where the only differences appears in debian/control file just to tweak some version number. I even had a case where two different DD did the upload, I *really* think this would save brain cycle if we had a lighter process. For instance, I would really like to see a special DM-Upload-Allowed + VCS field (because I use VCS, I believe minor changes to debian/* should be automatic). I really do believe only the first upload should be manually checked, and fixes on /exotic/ platform should not go into the main category. Thanks for your attention. -Mathieu Ps: I am fine with the definition of second class citizen, I just want to make the process a little lighter, this will reduce frustration for everyone. On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl toli...@debian.org wrote: Hi! I noticed that recently some people seem to seek first time sponsors while asking for setting the DM-Upload-Allowed: yes flag at the very same time. While I can certainly understand Maintainers want to upload their packages ASAP themselves, I would like to point out that I consider that quite against the spirit of the Debian Maintainer Concept. The idea is, that you convince an (experienced) Developer, that you can do your work on your own on a per package basis. As Debian Maintainers don't need to pass the regular procedures to check their technical capabilities (so to speak), the idea is to select the packages you are allowed to upload on a case by case basis. Or to give you an example: Just because you can package simple game doesn't necessarily mean you can package and maintain a shared library. So I think asking for DMUA:Yes while seeking an initial sponsor is just plain wrong, as convincing a DD shouldn't be a one timer. I therefore ask DMs not to ask to set this flag on the first upload, and DDs not to do so. Best regards, Alexander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c165527.20...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktincvd8byunygvvkqgz9xod8f6pqtqt21scts...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Asking for DMUA: Yes while seeking first sponsor
Hello Alexander, 2010/6/14 Alexander Reichle-Schmehl toli...@debian.org: So I think asking for DMUA:Yes while seeking an initial sponsor is just plain wrong, as convincing a DD shouldn't be a one timer. I therefore ask DMs not to ask to set this flag on the first upload, and DDs not to do so. Apologies I just got bitten by it. I had not reach this email. -- Héctor Orón Our Sun unleashes tremendous flares expelling hot gas into the Solar System, which one day will disconnect us. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktilwxiifpdlnc0_5s3kumtqlvrvlkkoo_crlu...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Asking for DMUA: Yes while seeking first sponsor
Hi, On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:14:54AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: This isn't the only misuse of DMUA that exists, some people set it in their package instead of asking the sponsor to set it. Others go further and do not mention that in debian/changelog nor in their RFS mail. That is generally fine with me -- they need to set the flag on their side too, so I don't see the point why they shouldn't build the source package after doing that and thus saving me the (minimal) effort. I don't think it needs to be reflected in the changelog either, as it doesn't really concern the packaging as such, but only upload permissions (also, if I should set it, then I'd have to write the changelog entry, no?). Generally, RFS mails should never happen for DMUA packages. Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100615110610.gb26...@richter
Re: Asking for DMUA: Yes while seeking first sponsor
Hi! Am 15.06.2010 12:16, schrieb Mathieu Malaterre: [..] [ uploading a package multiple times without DMUA:Yes] Thankfully I was under the debian-med umbrella, otherwise I would have gone mad, if every time I would have had to search for a DD. [..] Uhm... Why? I guess it's more the rule than the exception to contact the previous sponsor for an uploaded, and only seek a new one, should the first one be busy. At least it was that way, when I wasn't DD and I do I that way with my sponsorees. Best regards, Alexander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c1766fb.5050...@debian.org
Re: Asking for DMUA: Yes while seeking first sponsor
Hi! Am 15.06.2010 12:16, schrieb Mathieu Malaterre: Speaking of experience I had to re-upload 5 times the exact same packages (GDCM) because in between each upload: Why 5 times? - HPPA uploaded a Java package with dangling symnlink, - arm/armel updated the java package and libraries moved around, - vtk upload a libvtk-java with dangling symlink, - cmake was uploaded with a broken findjni.cmake. ref: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=562775 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=579959 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=544674#115 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=544674#167 Looking at these bug reports it seems at a first glance I see no reason for an upload of gdcm. #562775 seems to be a bug in vtk, got solved there. #579959 seems to have been a bug in cmake. #544674 and #544674 where again bugs in cmake. If I'm not mistaken, all these bugs could have been solved without sourceful uploads by requesting binNMUs. Best regards, Alexander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c176982.6040...@debian.org
Re: Asking for DMUA: Yes while seeking first sponsor
On 2010-06-15, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote: This isn't the only misuse of DMUA that exists, some people set it in their package instead of asking the sponsor to set it. Others go I guess it is unimportant who exactly writes the lines to debian/control. But the sponsor should definately agree on it being added. (I'm normally not modifying anything in the packages I sponsor, but ask the sponsoree to change things. This includes adding DMUA) /Sune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/slrni1esvf.rvp.nos...@sshway.ssh.pusling.com
Re: Asking for DMUA: Yes while seeking first sponsor
[Mathieu Malaterre, 2010-06-15] Thankfully I was under the debian-med umbrella, otherwise I would have gone mad, if every time I would have had to search for a DD. well, it is hard indeed (if you want a new DD for every upload). Hint: try to ask previous sponsor first! I completely understand when a package is being *first* uploaded the need for a DD to review it. What I do not understand is that I should go with this exact same process (which can takes a couple of days), where the only differences appears in debian/control file just to tweak some version number. I even had a case where two different DD did the upload, I *really* think this would save brain cycle if we had a lighter process. most of my sponsorees needed more than 10 uploads (and each upload: one or more RFS replies asking to fix bugs, including fixing the ones fixed after one of previous reply) before I was happy with the package quality and uploaded without a single reply to RFS mail, so I'm strongly against setting the DMUA flag soon (and setting it by someone who is not DD is simply not acceptable). My point is: instead of setting DMUA flag, read documentation and try to make the package as good as you can *before* requesting an upload (it happened to me more than once that I stopped checking a package after realizing that mentoree didn't even read New Maintainers' Guide) -- http://people.debian.org/~piotr/sponsor -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100615130711.gp31...@piotro.eu
Re: Asking for DMUA: Yes while seeking first sponsor
[Simon Richter, 2010-06-15] I don't think it needs to be reflected in the changelog either, as it doesn't really concern the packaging as such, but only upload permissions (also, if I should set it, then I'd have to write the changelog entry, no?). what about other DDs? I want to have a contact information to whoever set DMUA in given package (and I'm too lazy to check debdiff and invoke who-uploads to check it, that's what changelogs are for) -- http://people.debian.org/~piotr/sponsor -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100615131558.gq31...@piotro.eu
Re: Asking for DMUA: Yes while seeking first sponsor
David Paleino da...@debian.org writes: On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:14:54 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl toli...@debian.org wrote: I noticed that recently some people seem to seek first time sponsors while asking for setting the DM-Upload-Allowed: yes flag at the very same time. This isn't the only misuse of DMUA that exists, some people set it in their package instead of asking the sponsor to set it. It's our duty to check if DMUA is set or not. Never, EVER, review a package only based on a changelog. Sure just sponsors are also humans and make mistakes (like missing a added field in debian/control) If I am unhappy with DMUA for a specific maintainer+package pair, I talk to the maintainer, and tell her I can upload only without DMUA because I don't believe she is ready for unattended uploads. If she agrees, I simply drop that line from debian/control and upload the package -- otherwise she just goes and looks for another sponsor. Well I tend to just drop any package that silently sets DMUA or even asks directly for it (please consider is ok I've set DMUA is not for me) so probably one of the easy ways to get in toe queue of people not finding a sponsor. Regards Christoph pgpxTfL3f2bs2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Asking for DMUA: Yes while seeking first sponsor
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl toli...@debian.org writes: [..] [ uploading a package multiple times without DMUA:Yes] Thankfully I was under the debian-med umbrella, otherwise I would have gone mad, if every time I would have had to search for a DD. [..] Uhm... Why? I guess it's more the rule than the exception to contact the previous sponsor for an uploaded, and only seek a new one, should the first one be busy. And sponsoring a upload with a trivial diff is just a few minutes. If that's clear from the mail I guess most sponsors handle these in a couple of hourse (when online) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87aaqw9rwq@chillida.ipv6.sieglitzhof.net
Re: Asking for DMUA: Yes while seeking first sponsor
On Tuesday 15 June 2010 05:42:43 Paul Wise wrote: On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: The field should go away and be replaced with an out-of-band setting that only a sponsor can change. Looks like there is the possibility of changing this: Ganneff feel free to give us dak patches making DM saner. you will be heard. (from the #debian-mentors) Someone (preferrably a DD I suppose) feel free to look at http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMaintainer as well. I don't see a disclaimer stating anything about asking for DMUA while seeking a first time sponser. And in regards to the DMUA field itself, it seems to me the intent was to have DM's and DD's who've been working together for some time to agree to set the field. I mean, you already have to get advocated by a DD in the first place, agree to social contract, DFSG, and DMUP, then somehow manage to meet at least one DD in person to get your key signed. Isn't it easier to warn and/or delist DM's who abuse DMUA rather then change the current infrastructure? -- Regards, Andres Mejia -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201006151411.36872.mcita...@gmail.com
Re: Asking for DMUA: Yes while seeking first sponsor
Paul Wise p...@debian.org writes: Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: The field should go away and be replaced with an out-of-band setting that only a sponsor can change. Looks like there is the possibility of changing this: Ganneff feel free to give us dak patches making DM saner. you will be heard. (from the #debian-mentors) The current DM implementation is weird in that it's dictated by a GR. It might be worth getting a ruling from the project secretary on whether we need another GR to change the details of it (or, better, to make the details of it up to existing core teams to implement). I don't think that would be a problem, but it would be a nasty surprise if we found that out late in the process and something we could start the process on early. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87bpbcru47@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: Asking for DMUA: Yes while seeking first sponsor
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl toli...@debian.org wrote: I noticed that recently some people seem to seek first time sponsors while asking for setting the DM-Upload-Allowed: yes flag at the very same time. This isn't the only misuse of DMUA that exists, some people set it in their package instead of asking the sponsor to set it. Others go further and do not mention that in debian/changelog nor in their RFS mail. While I can certainly understand Maintainers want to upload their packages ASAP themselves, I would like to point out that I consider that quite against the spirit of the Debian Maintainer Concept. The idea is, that you convince an (experienced) Developer, that you can do your work on your own on a per package basis. As Debian Maintainers don't need to pass the regular procedures to check their technical capabilities (so to speak), the idea is to select the packages you are allowed to upload on a case by case basis. Or to give you an example: Just because you can package simple game doesn't necessarily mean you can package and maintain a shared library. So I think asking for DMUA:Yes while seeking an initial sponsor is just plain wrong, as convincing a DD shouldn't be a one timer. I therefore ask DMs not to ask to set this flag on the first upload, and DDs not to do so. Perhaps the problem here is one of communication? Maybe Debian isn't communicating the above to new DMs properly? As an aside, I'd personally like to see DMUA move from source packages to a mail bot or LDAP or something else. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktik-xtptbh5938oxujyvabgoqax4oanngczto...@mail.gmail.com
