Re: [Mageia-dev] maintainers database
Le mardi 21 décembre 2010 10:34:00, andre999 a écrit : > Luca Berra a écrit : > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 11:06:36PM +0100, Romain d'Alverny wrote: > >> For instance: > >> * instead of having a single maintainer for a given package, have > >> several maintainers (with an admin maybe) over a given package (easy); > > > > yes please > > > >> * should there be groups of packages defined? (this adds/replicates > >> some logic that may already be somewhere else) > > > > this can be useful, many desktop environments consist of more than one > > core package and development/packaging should be coordinated, so it > > makes sense. > > > >> * should there be explicity groups of maintainers? or implicit (as > >> made of people maintaining the same package)? > > > > i think explicit > > > > L. > > We could have a structure something like this : > > Primary key : name of package > > Other fields, 1:1 relation : > - package rpm category (+ subcategory, if any) > - repository > - etc > > Other fields, 1:N relation : > - Packager nickname + packager status (primary maintainer, trainee or > whatever) + real name + email > (The last 2 items could be in a separate table keyed by nickname.) > > - Package dependancies (names of other packages) > - Package provides (names of other packages) > - etc. > > Any of above fields could be chosen as secondary keys. > > This is just a quick suggestion, for the purposes of discussion. > > It doesn't seem that this sort of info would be useful in > mageia-app-db, which is primarily for end-users. > Well, there's no information related to RPMs that wouldn't be useful in mageia-app-db, which is meant to be useful both for end-users and contributors (basic view for the former, advanced view for the later). Dependancies, provides, will be queried from Sophie2. Maintainers will have to be queried from the maintainer db too so that we can add this information on mageia-app-db. In fact, hadn't been the deadline so short, I would have stepped in for the maintainer db, which would have benefited from the work already done on mageia- app-db. Regards Samuel Verschelde
Re: [Mageia-dev] maintainers database
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 13:35, Maarten Vanraes wrote: > Op dinsdag 21 december 2010 10:58:43 schreef Romain d'Alverny: >> - for a given source package, we want to know who maintains it (can >> be several persons), last activity (commit) on this package and >> consequent RPMs >> - for a given person, we want to know what packages are maintained by >> - we want to make and break such links between people and packages >> >> Anything _critical_ to add to this? > > - logging in Well, yes, obviously :-p > this next might not be critical (i don't know, that is for you to decide): > [...] Added for later improvements, if it gets reinforced with time. Thanks. Romain
Re: [Mageia-dev] maintainers database
Op dinsdag 21 december 2010 10:58:43 schreef Romain d'Alverny: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:40, nicolas vigier wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Dec 2010, andre999 wrote: > > [...] > > Please don't specify things at the technical level to this point. Just > express what is basically needed (sentences). > > To this point, all I can summarize is pretty straightforward: > - for a given source package, we want to know who maintains it (can > be several persons), last activity (commit) on this package and > consequent RPMs > - for a given person, we want to know what packages are maintained by > - we want to make and break such links between people and packages > > Anything _critical_ to add to this? > > Romain - logging in this next might not be critical (i don't know, that is for you to decide): - primary maintainership - restrictions: - if no maintainer is set: anyone can grab and will also be the primary maintainer - if no primary maintainer is set; noone can grab anything; but other maintainers can grab primary maintainership - if maintainers are set: then person might want to grab maintainership (not primary), but should be allowed by primary maintainer (optional)
Re: [Mageia-dev] maintainers database
Le mardi 21 décembre 2010 à 06:48 -0500, andre999 a écrit : > nicolas vigier a écrit : > > > > On Tue, 21 Dec 2010, andre999 wrote: > > > >> > >> We could have a structure something like this : > >> > >> Primary key : name of package > >> > >> Other fields, 1:1 relation : > >> - package rpm category (+ subcategory, if any) > > > > What is the category ? > > I meant the rpm group tag That's duplication with the content of the rpm, that is useless for our use cases. If you want a package database, there is sophie.zarb.org ( and its rewrite, sophie2 ). > >> - repository > >> - etc > >> > >> Other fields, 1:N relation : > >> - Packager nickname + packager status (primary maintainer, trainee or > >> whatever) + real name + email > >> (The last 2 items could be in a separate table keyed by nickname.) > > > > Why duplicate infos from ldap database ? And why would we need that in > > maintainers db ? > > Basically info in the packager wiki page. > what ldap database ? The ldap holding central authentication information ( ie, name, email, group, etc ), as mentioned on http://blog.mageia.org/?p=173 ( among others, we also discussed this quite a bit on sysadmin ). -- Michael Scherer
Re: [Mageia-dev] maintainers database
nicolas vigier a écrit : On Tue, 21 Dec 2010, andre999 wrote: We could have a structure something like this : Primary key : name of package Other fields, 1:1 relation : - package rpm category (+ subcategory, if any) What is the category ? I meant the rpm group tag - repository - etc Other fields, 1:N relation : - Packager nickname + packager status (primary maintainer, trainee or whatever) + real name + email (The last 2 items could be in a separate table keyed by nickname.) Why duplicate infos from ldap database ? And why would we need that in maintainers db ? Basically info in the packager wiki page. what ldap database ? - Package dependancies (names of other packages) Why would we need that in maintainers db ? - Package provides (names of other packages) Why would we need that in maintainers db ? These are just ideas thrown out for discussion. All info related to packages. If all such info were included, it could facilitate the validation of packages - if we were to find that a good idea. Obviously going a little beyond a bare list of packages and maintainers.
Re: [Mageia-dev] maintainers database
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:40, nicolas vigier wrote: > On Tue, 21 Dec 2010, andre999 wrote: > [...] Please don't specify things at the technical level to this point. Just express what is basically needed (sentences). To this point, all I can summarize is pretty straightforward: - for a given source package, we want to know who maintains it (can be several persons), last activity (commit) on this package and consequent RPMs - for a given person, we want to know what packages are maintained by - we want to make and break such links between people and packages Anything _critical_ to add to this? Romain
Re: [Mageia-dev] maintainers database
On Tue, 21 Dec 2010, andre999 wrote: > > We could have a structure something like this : > > Primary key : name of package > > Other fields, 1:1 relation : > - package rpm category (+ subcategory, if any) What is the category ? > - repository > - etc > > Other fields, 1:N relation : > - Packager nickname + packager status (primary maintainer, trainee or > whatever) + real name + email > (The last 2 items could be in a separate table keyed by nickname.) Why duplicate infos from ldap database ? And why would we need that in maintainers db ? > > - Package dependancies (names of other packages) Why would we need that in maintainers db ? > - Package provides (names of other packages) Why would we need that in maintainers db ?
Re: [Mageia-dev] maintainers database
Luca Berra a écrit : On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 11:06:36PM +0100, Romain d'Alverny wrote: For instance: * instead of having a single maintainer for a given package, have several maintainers (with an admin maybe) over a given package (easy); yes please * should there be groups of packages defined? (this adds/replicates some logic that may already be somewhere else) this can be useful, many desktop environments consist of more than one core package and development/packaging should be coordinated, so it makes sense. * should there be explicity groups of maintainers? or implicit (as made of people maintaining the same package)? i think explicit L. We could have a structure something like this : Primary key : name of package Other fields, 1:1 relation : - package rpm category (+ subcategory, if any) - repository - etc Other fields, 1:N relation : - Packager nickname + packager status (primary maintainer, trainee or whatever) + real name + email (The last 2 items could be in a separate table keyed by nickname.) - Package dependancies (names of other packages) - Package provides (names of other packages) - etc. Any of above fields could be chosen as secondary keys. This is just a quick suggestion, for the purposes of discussion. It doesn't seem that this sort of info would be useful in mageia-app-db, which is primarily for end-users. another 2 cents :) André
Re: [Mageia-dev] maintainers database
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 11:06:36PM +0100, Romain d'Alverny wrote: For instance: * instead of having a single maintainer for a given package, have several maintainers (with an admin maybe) over a given package (easy); yes please * should there be groups of packages defined? (this adds/replicates some logic that may already be somewhere else) this can be useful, many desktop environments consist of more than one core package and development/packaging should be coordinated, so it makes sense. * should there be explicity groups of maintainers? or implicit (as made of people maintaining the same package)? i think explicit L. -- Luca Berra -- bl...@vodka.it
Re: [Mageia-dev] maintainers database
Op zaterdag 18 december 2010 12:00:52 schreef Michael scherer: > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 11:55:39PM +0100, Romain d'Alverny wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 23:41, Maarten Vanraes > > > > 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. > > I think we should use a simple sql database for now. > > Even if later, ldap could help use to set ACL, and tree structure for > packages ( ie, the grouping feature of packages you spoke of ), I think we > should aim first for a very basic application : > > 1 srpm -> 1 to N maintainers, > > and that's all. > > Later, we can think more thoroughly about this, and likely rewrite. > But the initial goal was to reuse mdvdb because > it was the fastest route. So we should not forget about it. If we use a > quick and dirty django application with basic CRUD to manage that, it > should be fine. i'm ok with quick and dirty. tbh, i would like to have this in ldap; since it's related to groups; especially if we will woul mailgroups for each package, the member (or uniqueMember) can be used to get all the maintainers for that package, and an extra attribute to have a primary maintainer. in effect: being co-maintainer could even be validated by the primary maintainer; if primary maintainer leaves, a co-maintainer can grab the primary maintainership; if no maintainers are there, someone can become maintainer without checks, and becomes primary maintainer directly. only valid packagers can grab maintainership (but novices can too) packagers should have an ldap attribute for the level: none, novice, full, security (where none can be omitted and security means he can do security updates) (if you haven't seen it yet; i'm a fan of having everything directly related to auth and groupings of users into an ldap)
Re: [Mageia-dev] maintainers database
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 11:55:39PM +0100, Romain d'Alverny wrote: > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 23:41, Maarten Vanraes > 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. I think we should use a simple sql database for now. Even if later, ldap could help use to set ACL, and tree structure for packages ( ie, the grouping feature of packages you spoke of ), I think we should aim first for a very basic application : 1 srpm -> 1 to N maintainers, and that's all. Later, we can think more thoroughly about this, and likely rewrite. But the initial goal was to reuse mdvdb because it was the fastest route. So we should not forget about it. If we use a quick and dirty django application with basic CRUD to manage that, it should be fine. -- Michael Scherer
Re: [Mageia-dev] maintainers database
Op vrijdag 17 december 2010 23:55:39 schreef Romain d'Alverny: > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 23:41, Maarten Vanraes > > wrote: > > imo, it could be used into mageia-app-db, allthough the purposes are a > > bit different. > > So it should be a separate component. mageia-app-db does related stuff; but afaik, it only does read operations > > 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. well, i don't know; in effect; IMHO the model is no more than a groupname with members in it and possibly an extra attribute that defines the primary member. if the groupname is equal to the package name; and if they are in a separate base; then this could easily be used for limiting if that is desired later on. AFAIK the contents changes and how it's used, but not the model itself. if we will use ldap as backend, then we should use catdap; if we do something else; we should have another app. > > 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
Re: [Mageia-dev] maintainers database
Romain d'Alverny a écrit : On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 23:41, Maarten Vanraes 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
Re: [Mageia-dev] maintainers database
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 23:41, Maarten Vanraes 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
Re: [Mageia-dev] maintainers database
Op vrijdag 17 december 2010 23:06:36 schreef Romain d'Alverny: > Hi there, > > it looks like we will need a database to know who maintains what, > basically. > > It used to be http://maintainers.mandriva.com/ - its source code has > no explicit license, so we've got to build this again. > > I drafted a very quick page for this here: > http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=web:maintdb with basic entites and > relationships. > > Now, it would good to know what packagers (and others) need for this. > For instance: > * instead of having a single maintainer for a given package, have > several maintainers (with an admin maybe) over a given package (easy); > * should there be groups of packages defined? (this adds/replicates > some logic that may already be somewhere else) > * should there be explicity groups of maintainers? or implicit (as > made of people maintaining the same package)? > * should there be (customizable) alerts/warnings for people, when a > new package is added, or removed, or that has no more maintainer? > * ? > > Thing is, this should be a really small, basic, simple component app. > So it plays easily with other components. I don't know how this could > be implemented/used or replaced by mageia-app-db however. > > Thanks for your insights. > > Cheers, > > Romain imo, it could be used into mageia-app-db, allthough the purposes are a bit different. 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. however, we will have need of this soon; and it should also take into account co-maintainers...
[Mageia-dev] maintainers database
Hi there, it looks like we will need a database to know who maintains what, basically. It used to be http://maintainers.mandriva.com/ - its source code has no explicit license, so we've got to build this again. I drafted a very quick page for this here: http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=web:maintdb with basic entites and relationships. Now, it would good to know what packagers (and others) need for this. For instance: * instead of having a single maintainer for a given package, have several maintainers (with an admin maybe) over a given package (easy); * should there be groups of packages defined? (this adds/replicates some logic that may already be somewhere else) * should there be explicity groups of maintainers? or implicit (as made of people maintaining the same package)? * should there be (customizable) alerts/warnings for people, when a new package is added, or removed, or that has no more maintainer? * ? Thing is, this should be a really small, basic, simple component app. So it plays easily with other components. I don't know how this could be implemented/used or replaced by mageia-app-db however. Thanks for your insights. Cheers, Romain
