Mentors BoF at DebConf (was: Re: Allowing QA uploads for DMs (was: A lot of pending packages))
On 16 June 2010 03:21, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote: On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Tim Retout dioc...@debian.org wrote: (Advance warning: I'm interested in discussing the mentoring process at DebConf.) Please register a BoF in penta about it to give folks more advance warning. I've now submitted a BoF for DebCamp, with the intention of a follow-up BoF at DebConf proper. Of course, the penta submission is merely warning now, I guess. :) -- Tim Retout dioc...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimvdflaz2zpmgq7axxqm0cxsahrsrcve6qks...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Allowing QA uploads for DMs (was: A lot of pending packages)
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:59:04 -0700 Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 08:50:28AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: What about if Debian QA packages were all to be deemed suitable for DM upload, including those which have been orphaned for over 2 months without a change of maintainer? Maybe when an orphaned package is uploaded with the change of maintainer to Debian QA, the DM upload field could also be set? Ugh, what a terrible idea. DMs are by definition uploaders who have *not* yet demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the project, their capability to do unsupervised uploads of arbitrary packages. Why are you so eager to gut our QA processes? I'm not trying to undermine QA, I'm trying to get more people involved in QA instead of directing new people at new packages which become the QA workload of tomorrow. I'm basing this on the idea that some packages in QA only need small updates as the majority of the packaging work is already done. Yes, there are some that were orphaned purely because the packaging is too hard or the upstream code is just awkward but a lot are orphaned because the volunteer maintainer had a change in their real life priorities, through no fault of the package itself. Maybe there could be a way of indicating which packages in QA fall each side of such an evaluation. i.e. Orphaned-and-borked or orphaned-but-ready. Debtags might be a solution for that, with suitably renamed special QA tags or maybe comments/tags in the O: bug report. This could be similar to the low-NMU status. DM's have not yet demonstrated the capability to do unsupervised uploads of NEW packages but QA uploads can be *less* work than packaging an entirely new package. If a new package is significantly less work than fixing a few lintian issues in an orphaned package, I'd question whether the new package concerned is worth packaging in the first place. DMs should request sponsorship of QA uploads on debian-qa just like anybody else. If they consistently demonstrate their competence in this fashion, they should be recognized for this by making them full DDs - not by conferring additional rights on DMs that the DM admissions criteria aren't set up for! I think we have to consider redirecting new volunteers AWAY from assuming that their work must centre on a NEW package and make it equally (or even more) likely that new people get to learn their craft on existing, orphaned, packages. After all, these packages are the work of their peers, albeit inactive peers. If a package has been orphaned long enough that it is already under QA, it's fairly obvious that having anyone take an interest in it is better than just leaving it bit rot. Equally, I submit that getting orphaned packages updated is a more worthy goal than adding another NEW package that will become a QA package if that contributor loses interest. We need to discourage me-too packages more firmly. We also need to dissuade new contributors from taking only a narrow interest in a single new package and instead gain an understanding of the wider needs of the project. Getting new contributors to work on QA helps QA at both ends - by drawing some packages out of QA and back into teams (or out of the archive completely) and by discouraging new contributors from adding new packages merely to get something done as a contributor, thereby reducing the flow of packages into QA in the future. This way, the results of the MIA team flow back into the project as the work of new contributors. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/ pgpJnJG7ue0N8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A lot of pending packages
[Jakub Wilk, 2010-06-15] I consider QA/adoption uploads without DD assistance unacceptable. +1 -- Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100616071552.gw31...@piotro.eu
Re: Allowing QA uploads for DMs (was: A lot of pending packages)
On Wednesday 16 June 2010, Tim Retout wrote: On 15 June 2010 21:59, Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote: Encouraging maintainers to invest their time in QA makes more sense than adding more NEW packages to become the QA workload of the future. Directing everyone at NEW is counter-productive and encourages more horrible first-time packages. I agree entirely with this goal - I'm not yet certain that allowing unrestricted QA uploads by DMs will solve that problem, although I wouldn't be against testing it out. For starters, it could only really be allowed for DMs, not any old packager, I think. So would this produce results among normal mentees? My understanding was that some DMs are interested only in the packages they already maintain, otherwise they would be in the NM queue - so this subset would be less likely to bother with orphaned packages, surely? As for the others... if the act of allowing unrestricted QA uploads would spur them to make lots of fixes, why do we not see DDs doing this all the time? There also some package maintainers such as I am, who simply do not have the time to go through the NM queue. And no, I won't even think about to adapt orphan packages, I already don't get packages I'm interested in through mentors. Fortunately, Martin Pitt now wants to help me to upload unionfs-fuse. I was already close to send a mail to this list requesting to remove this package from Debian. IMHO, it is wrong to list me as Maintainer, if it impossible to maintain it... Cheers, Bernd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201006170342.20269.bernd.schub...@fastmail.fm
Re: A lot of pending packages
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 23:03:33 +0200 Vincent Danjean vdanjean...@free.fr wrote: On 11/06/2010 09:54, Thomas Goirand wrote: Right, I was being silly. Also, the word experimental adds more fear to the user than just devel, which is good. Let me rephrase then. How about we accept MORE packages with LESS checks in Experimental, and have new maintainers forced in that repository, then if they are seen as responsive, we upload to SID? Could that be a sponsor's decision already right now, and be considered a good practice? I disagree with this new proposed used of experimental. If you do this, you will end up with newbies using experimental to get new stuff and breaking their system to us a big on-going transition in experimental. +1 Also, to get into experimental, NEW packages still have to go through the NEW queue and the ftpmaster team. A lot of packages that need sponsoring from mentors.debian.net are in no fit state to be accepted. This would be an abuse of experimental and a hindrance to other packages getting through NEW. OTOH if those requesting sponsorship were more open to packaging some of the orphaned packages listed under WNPP and qa.debian.org which have already been through NEW http://qa.debian.org/orphaned.html Number of packages: 250 http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=packa...@qa.debian.org main (428) What about if Debian QA packages were all to be deemed suitable for DM upload, including those which have been orphaned for over 2 months without a change of maintainer? Maybe when an orphaned package is uploaded with the change of maintainer to Debian QA, the DM upload field could also be set? I would be much more likely to consider sponsoring again if the people requesting sponsorship were prepared to work on existing orphaned packages rather than always insisting on new stuff. i.e. one reason packages are left pending is because NEW packages are a lot more work to sponsor than orphaned packages. Just because a package is orphaned, doesn't always mean that the package itself is unwanted, just that the original maintainer lost interest / time. There are some orphaned packages with both high popcon and high bug counts. Personally, I'd be much happier sponsoring uploads of those packages, including putting the packages under DM. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/ pgp4Sy7mcIhRL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Allowing QA uploads for DMs (was: A lot of pending packages)
Hi! Am 15.06.2010 09:50, schrieb Neil Williams: OTOH if those requesting sponsorship were more open to packaging some of the orphaned packages listed under WNPP and qa.debian.org which have already been through NEW [..] What about if Debian QA packages were all to be deemed suitable for DM upload, including those which have been orphaned for over 2 months without a change of maintainer? Maybe when an orphaned package is uploaded with the change of maintainer to Debian QA, the DM upload field could also be set? It's not that easy, as the current criteria for a DM upload are DMUA:Yes set AND listed as maintainer or uploader in the most recent upload to experimentatl or unstable IIRC. However, I like the idea :) Best regards, Alexander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c1743f6.2030...@schmehl.info
Re: Allowing QA uploads for DMs (was: A lot of pending packages)
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:12:22 +0200 Alexander Reichle-Schmehl alexan...@schmehl.info wrote: Hi! Am 15.06.2010 09:50, schrieb Neil Williams: OTOH if those requesting sponsorship were more open to packaging some of the orphaned packages listed under WNPP and qa.debian.org which have already been through NEW [..] What about if Debian QA packages were all to be deemed suitable for DM upload, including those which have been orphaned for over 2 months without a change of maintainer? Maybe when an orphaned package is uploaded with the change of maintainer to Debian QA, the DM upload field could also be set? It's not that easy, as the current criteria for a DM upload are DMUA:Yes set AND listed as maintainer or uploader in the most recent upload to experimentatl or unstable IIRC. True, but current criteria can be modified such as to assert that packa...@qa.debian.org is a special maintainer with regard to DM. All DD's are members of QA by default, it doesn't take much for that to be extended to those in the DM keyring. The primary restriction on uploads is the signing key, not necessarily the name or email address - this is especially true of QA packages which have no Maintainer: and no Uploaders: but every DD is allowed to upload with QA upload in the changelog and a valid DD signature on the .changes. However, I like the idea :) :-) -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/ pgpm5clobaAWN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A lot of pending packages
* Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org, 2010-06-15, 08:50: What about if Debian QA packages were all to be deemed suitable for DM upload, including those which have been orphaned for over 2 months without a change of maintainer? Maybe when an orphaned package is uploaded with the change of maintainer to Debian QA, the DM upload field could also be set? If a package is neglected, it is *harder* (sometimes way harder) to maintain, which makes it *less* suitable for DMs. I consider QA/adoption uploads without DD assistance unacceptable. -- Jakub Wilk signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Allowing QA uploads for DMs (was: A lot of pending packages)
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:28:19 +0200 Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org wrote: * Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org, 2010-06-15, 08:50: What about if Debian QA packages were all to be deemed suitable for DM upload, including those which have been orphaned for over 2 months without a change of maintainer? Maybe when an orphaned package is uploaded with the change of maintainer to Debian QA, the DM upload field could also be set? If a package is neglected, it is *harder* (sometimes way harder) to maintain, which makes it *less* suitable for DMs. I disagree completely. A new package has no end of potential pitfalls and non-obvious problems which inexperienced maintainers will miss. A stale or neglected package has at least had some attention in the first place and only needs a few tweaks, not a wholesale update to the latest-greatest-cool-gizmo status. Whether a package is orphaned or not has no particular bearing on the complexity of the packaging task compared to NEW packages. Adding yet another python script or CPAN package is not useful. Fixing stuff that is already in use is more helpful. Some are more difficult than others, same with NEW packages - it is up to the maintainer to decide. At least with an orphaned package, the maintainer often has a waiting community of users. New packages might take months to get more than a dozen users. This isn't about updating the upstream code, just keeping orphaned packages ticking over on something approaching current Policy instead of something pre-dating Etch. I consider QA/adoption uploads without DD assistance unacceptable. A QA upload might just be a case of updating the Maintainer and fixing some lintian issues. You could see it fixing stuff without the hassle of writing the manpage and copyright file. Could be more appealing than a new package where everything has to be done at once. OK, there are difficult packages which are orphaned but there are difficult packages which would be new to Debian too. There's also the instant feedback, instead of waiting for the package to get through NEW. There's no need to bring orphaned packages up to DH7, migrate the packaging into git or change all the patches over to a new system and the rest; it's orphaned, just make sure it is lintian clean, close a few bugs if you can. The existing packaging may be out of date but that's fine, unless the maintainer is going to adopt the package, it can stay behind current as long as it works. *Interest* in the package is much more important than the current state of that package. Encouraging maintainers to invest their time in QA makes more sense than adding more NEW packages to become the QA workload of the future. Directing everyone at NEW is counter-productive and encourages more horrible first-time packages. At least if people spend time on QA then the bugs filed against packages in QA stand half a chance of being fixed. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/ pgpzF10ZFux4r.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A lot of pending packages
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 08:50:28AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: What about if Debian QA packages were all to be deemed suitable for DM upload, including those which have been orphaned for over 2 months without a change of maintainer? Maybe when an orphaned package is uploaded with the change of maintainer to Debian QA, the DM upload field could also be set? Ugh, what a terrible idea. DMs are by definition uploaders who have *not* yet demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the project, their capability to do unsupervised uploads of arbitrary packages. Why are you so eager to gut our QA processes? DMs should request sponsorship of QA uploads on debian-qa just like anybody else. If they consistently demonstrate their competence in this fashion, they should be recognized for this by making them full DDs - not by conferring additional rights on DMs that the DM admissions criteria aren't set up for! -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Allowing QA uploads for DMs (was: A lot of pending packages)
On 15 June 2010 21:59, Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote: Encouraging maintainers to invest their time in QA makes more sense than adding more NEW packages to become the QA workload of the future. Directing everyone at NEW is counter-productive and encourages more horrible first-time packages. I agree entirely with this goal - I'm not yet certain that allowing unrestricted QA uploads by DMs will solve that problem, although I wouldn't be against testing it out. For starters, it could only really be allowed for DMs, not any old packager, I think. So would this produce results among normal mentees? My understanding was that some DMs are interested only in the packages they already maintain, otherwise they would be in the NM queue - so this subset would be less likely to bother with orphaned packages, surely? As for the others... if the act of allowing unrestricted QA uploads would spur them to make lots of fixes, why do we not see DDs doing this all the time? (Advance warning: I'm interested in discussing the mentoring process at DebConf.) -- Tim Retout dioc...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktinxmtmvfpuhsi1pohers0xfzut_mln4-gxd_...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Allowing QA uploads for DMs (was: A lot of pending packages)
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Tim Retout dioc...@debian.org wrote: (Advance warning: I'm interested in discussing the mentoring process at DebConf.) Please register a BoF in penta about it to give folks more advance warning. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimi55lc3p9jfnavb2pzwt0742psbcs8gklnc...@mail.gmail.com
Re: A lot of pending packages
On 11/06/2010 09:54, Thomas Goirand wrote: Right, I was being silly. Also, the word experimental adds more fear to the user than just devel, which is good. Let me rephrase then. How about we accept MORE packages with LESS checks in Experimental, and have new maintainers forced in that repository, then if they are seen as responsive, we upload to SID? Could that be a sponsor's decision already right now, and be considered a good practice? I disagree with this new proposed used of experimental. If you do this, you will end up with newbies using experimental to get new stuff and breaking their system to us a big on-going transition in experimental. Vincent -- Vincent Danjean GPG key ID 0x9D025E87 vdanj...@debian.org GPG key fingerprint: FC95 08A6 854D DB48 4B9A 8A94 0BF7 7867 9D02 5E87 Unofficial packages: http://moais.imag.fr/membres/vincent.danjean/deb.html APT repo: deb http://perso.debian.org/~vdanjean/debian unstable main -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c169925.8040...@free.fr
Re: A lot of pending packages
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:17:00AM +0200, Andreas Marschke wrote: On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 00:58 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 06:01:27 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: My 2nd suggestion is coming from the Maemo platform (the OS behind the Nokia n900 that is Debian based). In Maemo, there is a devel repository that includes apps that aren't necessarily in good shape. The users know that fact when they are adding the repository which contains packages that are not necessarily as tested, and wont complain. I understand that this new archive area would be non-offical, but still my fear is that users won't distinguish and those packages would be considered as Debian packages and might have the risk of shedding a bad light on Debian quality. Indeed, I remember some discussions to have something similar to Ubuntu's PPA, the idea could some nice, but when I see a lot of ubuntu users complaining on IRC channels when a PPA package is broken the idea does not sound good. We already have a lot of users getting confuse and taking non-free as a something that is a full part of Debian, having a service that allow $RANDOM quality packages could be taken on the same way. I'm not a DD but I'm thinking that we could rather utilize experimental for such things. For one thing it is OBVIOUSLY NOT recommended to use packages from experimental if all you want is a stable Debian. But it is still a place to EXPERIMENT with new and yet untested packages. So new and fresh package maintainers can try themselves out in experimental rather than cross fingers that enough people found out about this _unofficial_ repository. Experimental has already one reason to exists, and this _new_ approach will not suit there. Cheers -- René Mayorga -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100612185324.gj29...@debian.org.sv
Re: A lot of pending packages
I'm not still a DD, and I would like to have an easier way to get my packages into Debian. But I'm afraid by opening up the experimental section, quality will be sacrificed. Just look at quality of some packages in universe of Ubuntu. Some of them even don't have a reasonable summary! On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Jordan Metzmeier titan8...@gmail.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/10/2010 06:01 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: My 2nd suggestion is coming from the Maemo platform (the OS behind the Nokia n900 that is Debian based). In Maemo, there is a devel repository that includes apps that aren't necessarily in good shape. The users know that fact when they are adding the repository which contains packages that are not necessarily as tested, and wont complain. Isn't this already called experimental? If not, how would it differ? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJMEX+zAAoJEKj/C3qNthmTs2gP/At420Y2EMm80++NEPftTAy4 HuRdWwIpKQ7diwWKkqeSsYVSFtFA52MAYn/Us+nTE/M7IYVf5gxjiwuL4JClFAxW /IjZ3lhd6jnYmAUVWhIWpxg5WJhjkMwDxIsjBdIbeAgUD7OMI38VaXuwOh1hGzo0 x5RiY3/jiiVKrZdb07uqGigvPuF8B2lNP0c5zePHeNl/Syt9uA4GO/wrzCLsZz1x O2Vs2ng9N5pxWTLw2T61cRC9dynEhZeqQlhbqVaSIuw7xCTJQPh1L4/awVXHXp60 /Q2oc2pMjfAFtI/noAqPbhH+tWeRq1P2+JePEopRkVT0KZA4o8qDo0PrXH4am5xq CSczIY2Hq3sc/ZT3eEnB1LflT3Tj2vJYjowo2XG5Ua2nvcEru9M49kiQlLYXCLj0 wc/fFAXc6+VPHEUGdBk417dYPbipH7WKPkleyglv9DJDxRljIg1LYVVQZyQ9XDCo b05b5Rh/Kyq0JN0G1aUF4roOOGYoTTLPSbkheH5OO6BhhcOfUUZKO4mA8hcm4gxQ v45cflqyHJHE5UY2sIE3WpMYWC2fVuM+NQAk6Vlk3bUh43EPtHqLE8VwVZEAiKDz /baPfEEFohz2bf0q8lfrE+rdFFEwQz8P/CajGf3xs45bLTMdU0ZlAlMLAii4Bzrc IV/FeK0utzNYrEHLDsEm =IiwS -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c117fb8.10...@gmail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktikyvi5ftkcrs3oh1gldkeirffubkx4woqttt...@mail.gmail.com
Re: A lot of pending packages
Jordan Metzmeier wrote: On 06/10/2010 06:01 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: My 2nd suggestion is coming from the Maemo platform (the OS behind the Nokia n900 that is Debian based). In Maemo, there is a devel repository that includes apps that aren't necessarily in good shape. The users know that fact when they are adding the repository which contains packages that are not necessarily as tested, and wont complain. Isn't this already called experimental? If not, how would it differ? Right, I was being silly. Also, the word experimental adds more fear to the user than just devel, which is good. Let me rephrase then. How about we accept MORE packages with LESS checks in Experimental, and have new maintainers forced in that repository, then if they are seen as responsive, we upload to SID? Could that be a sponsor's decision already right now, and be considered a good practice? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c11ebc...@goirand.fr
Re: A lot of pending packages
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 00:58 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 06:01:27 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: My 2nd suggestion is coming from the Maemo platform (the OS behind the Nokia n900 that is Debian based). In Maemo, there is a devel repository that includes apps that aren't necessarily in good shape. The users know that fact when they are adding the repository which contains packages that are not necessarily as tested, and wont complain. I'm not sure I like this idea. Although I also sometimes install inoffical packages, when I look at the packages with RC bugs I'm constantly suprised about the amount of low-quality packages we already have in the archive (when poor lintian has to emit page after page of errors and warnings ...). I understand that this new archive area would be non-offical, but still my fear is that users won't distinguish and those packages would be considered as Debian packages and might have the risk of shedding a bad light on Debian quality. Hi! I'm not a DD but I'm thinking that we could rather utilize experimental for such things. For one thing it is OBVIOUSLY NOT recommended to use packages from experimental if all you want is a stable Debian. But it is still a place to EXPERIMENT with new and yet untested packages. So new and fresh package maintainers can try themselves out in experimental rather than cross fingers that enough people found out about this _unofficial_ repository. Any objections? If so please let me know. Cheers, Andreas Marschke. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1276244220.18049.6.ca...@eeepc
Re: A lot of pending packages
On Jun 11, 2010, at 10:17, Andreas Marschke wrote: On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 00:58 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 06:01:27 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: My 2nd suggestion is coming from the Maemo platform (the OS behind the Nokia n900 that is Debian based). In Maemo, there is a devel repository that includes apps that aren't necessarily in good shape. The users know that fact when they are adding the repository which contains packages that are not necessarily as tested, and wont complain. It is difficult to correlate the Maemo experience with the Debian experience. Remember that Nokia still controls Maemo and it is not free software, there are binary blobs and other things that are proprietary. So there toolchain and work flow are different. I'm not sure I like this idea. Although I also sometimes install inoffical packages, when I look at the packages with RC bugs I'm constantly suprised about the amount of low-quality packages we already have in the archive (when poor lintian has to emit page after page of errors and warnings ...). Ironically enough, there have been calls in Maemo to follow the debian way of doing things, that is to say change the Maemo work flow so packages go into testing, etc. I understand that this new archive area would be non-offical, but still my fear is that users won't distinguish and those packages would be considered as Debian packages and might have the risk of shedding a bad light on Debian quality. Hi! I'm not a DD but I'm thinking that we could rather utilize experimental for such things. For one thing it is OBVIOUSLY NOT recommended to use packages from experimental if all you want is a stable Debian. But it is still a place to EXPERIMENT with new and yet untested packages. So new and fresh package maintainers can try themselves out in experimental rather than cross fingers that enough people found out about this _unofficial_ repository. Any objections? If so please let me know. From my experience working with Maemo, I greatly prefer the Debian quality assurance and packaging process. I think it is far more effective for producing quality software as well as enabling contributions from developers and packagers. It is has been proven effective over time and contributed to Debian's legendary stability. Any change just for the sake of change would seem to be counter-productive. If you need a sandbox to test packages, pbuilder and/or cowbuilder are very useful, and you can create your own repository with reprepro which is an excellent tool. Fundamentally altering the current path that packages take into the stable distribution should have a compelling justification, I don't currently see one provided. Jeremiah -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5c8e25a6-615e-4cc3-84e5-a0d393e3b...@jeremiahfoster.com
Re: A lot of pending packages
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:13:35AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: Sometimes the package is beyond my skill level (such as Java or complicated maintainer scripts) or written in languages I strongly dislike (PHP), which means I review part of the package and will not sponsor it. ---end quoted text--- It would be nice to have a page on mentors.d.n to advice uploaders to actually seek sponsorship from relevant Debian teams (Gnome/Java/PHP...) -- أحمد المحمودي (Ahmed El-Mahmoudy) Digital design engineer GPG KeyID: 0xEDDDA1B7 GPG Fingerprint: 8206 A196 2084 7E6D 0DF8 B176 BC19 6A94 EDDD A1B7 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100610053952.ga2...@ants.dhis.net
Re: A lot of pending packages
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 06:01:27 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: My 2nd suggestion is coming from the Maemo platform (the OS behind the Nokia n900 that is Debian based). In Maemo, there is a devel repository that includes apps that aren't necessarily in good shape. The users know that fact when they are adding the repository which contains packages that are not necessarily as tested, and wont complain. I'm not sure I like this idea. Although I also sometimes install inoffical packages, when I look at the packages with RC bugs I'm constantly suprised about the amount of low-quality packages we already have in the archive (when poor lintian has to emit page after page of errors and warnings ...). I understand that this new archive area would be non-offical, but still my fear is that users won't distinguish and those packages would be considered as Debian packages and might have the risk of shedding a bad light on Debian quality. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG key IDs: 0x8649AA06, 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe `-NP: Schmetterlinge: Der Schuß von hinten signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: A lot of pending packages
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: My sponsoring preferences are available from URL: http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/debian-sponsoring.html . To make sure I have direct contact with the prospective package maintainer and avoid a backlog of packages I should have sponsored, I want to be contacted on IRC about sponsoring. So to me, mentors.debian.net is a nice repository to find the source, and uploading there is not the last step a future package maintainer need to take to get her packages sponsored. Hi, Before I write anything else: I only need to have my Debian accounts created and I'll be a DD. So, I am kind of seeing things with 2 different viewpoint at the same time: from my sponsoree and future DD. I got 2 suggestions to make about sponsoring. These are just raw ideas that I am sending, I'm not sure if they are good, but I just want to share what's in my mind. Feel free to comment and explain why I'm wrong. Maybe we could imagine a kind of survey that the sponsor would write, to tell how the new maintainer performed with his package, just right after it has been sponsored. That of course, be some added sponsor's work, but it could be kept small. My 2nd suggestion is coming from the Maemo platform (the OS behind the Nokia n900 that is Debian based). In Maemo, there is a devel repository that includes apps that aren't necessarily in good shape. The users know that fact when they are adding the repository which contains packages that are not necessarily as tested, and wont complain. I wonder if we could have such a repository in Debian, so that new maintainers would have their packages sent there. We would have to discuss what would be the rules to get from devel to SID. What I have in mind could be checks like: - the maintainer has been responsive for a period of time - the packages of the maintainer have been in good shape as well The issue really being the way the maintainer is reacting to issues, rather than the issues themselves. The advantage of this system would be that we wouldn't need so much check to have apps going to devel. We could even think about it as a big bazaar of ongoing work that would not need checks at all (apart of course, licensing, that would still need strong checks). This would prevent people from not being happy about sponsorship in SID. The devel repository could be said as NOT part of Debian, just like contrib and non-free. Now, combine the 2 ideas. If a (new) maintainer has X good sponsor surveys, then his package(s) would go from the devel repository to SID automatically (after a DD checks for it manually and agree on the decision), and he would gain the rights to have his packages go directly to SID when they get sponsored. Don't get me wrong, the idea is to have LESS checks on the sponsored packages, rather than too much, so that we would have a faster sponsoring process (new maintainers will be happy, sponsors too), while still maintaining intensive quality checks in SID / testing. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c1160b7.5050...@goirand.fr
Re: A lot of pending packages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/10/2010 06:01 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: My 2nd suggestion is coming from the Maemo platform (the OS behind the Nokia n900 that is Debian based). In Maemo, there is a devel repository that includes apps that aren't necessarily in good shape. The users know that fact when they are adding the repository which contains packages that are not necessarily as tested, and wont complain. Isn't this already called experimental? If not, how would it differ? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJMEX+zAAoJEKj/C3qNthmTs2gP/At420Y2EMm80++NEPftTAy4 HuRdWwIpKQ7diwWKkqeSsYVSFtFA52MAYn/Us+nTE/M7IYVf5gxjiwuL4JClFAxW /IjZ3lhd6jnYmAUVWhIWpxg5WJhjkMwDxIsjBdIbeAgUD7OMI38VaXuwOh1hGzo0 x5RiY3/jiiVKrZdb07uqGigvPuF8B2lNP0c5zePHeNl/Syt9uA4GO/wrzCLsZz1x O2Vs2ng9N5pxWTLw2T61cRC9dynEhZeqQlhbqVaSIuw7xCTJQPh1L4/awVXHXp60 /Q2oc2pMjfAFtI/noAqPbhH+tWeRq1P2+JePEopRkVT0KZA4o8qDo0PrXH4am5xq CSczIY2Hq3sc/ZT3eEnB1LflT3Tj2vJYjowo2XG5Ua2nvcEru9M49kiQlLYXCLj0 wc/fFAXc6+VPHEUGdBk417dYPbipH7WKPkleyglv9DJDxRljIg1LYVVQZyQ9XDCo b05b5Rh/Kyq0JN0G1aUF4roOOGYoTTLPSbkheH5OO6BhhcOfUUZKO4mA8hcm4gxQ v45cflqyHJHE5UY2sIE3WpMYWC2fVuM+NQAk6Vlk3bUh43EPtHqLE8VwVZEAiKDz /baPfEEFohz2bf0q8lfrE+rdFFEwQz8P/CajGf3xs45bLTMdU0ZlAlMLAii4Bzrc IV/FeK0utzNYrEHLDsEm =IiwS -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c117fb8.10...@gmail.com
A lot of pending packages
Hi all, I'm a simple debian contributor: I'm trying to get my work in debian through a sponsor [1] [2]. The problem is that I'm waiting for a sponsor since 7 days+ (and not only me, in mentors.debian.net there are 20+ pending packages) [3]. Why are they in pending status and nobody wants to upload them? I know, we all are busy with the real life things, but a bit of attention should be given to that situation. The most important questions are: if nobody wants to upload the pending packages, how can you encourage the people which is trying to contribute for debian? If that's not happening then it means you aren't doing a good work (yes and I'm sorry to say that). How can we ask ubuntu prospective developers to get their work in debian if their packages will not be sponsorized? [4] My wish (for me and other contributors) is to see the list of the pending uploads clean, with no pending packages. In case of inconsistence with the debian packages and the debian policy I'd suggest to use this mailing list as help for new contributions (someone is already doing that), but from many time I see just RFS first of the e-mail with few answer e-mail (not for all packages). [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2010/06/msg4.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2010/06/msg5.html [3] http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/sponsor-pkglist [4] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2010-April/030716.html Kind regards, Lorenzo De Liso -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1276121151.32039.6.ca...@pc-lorenzo
Re: A lot of pending packages
Hello, Il giorno mer, 09/06/2010 alle 22.44 +, Sune Vuorela ha scritto: When I'm sponsoring packages, which happens from time to time, it is normally packages that I somehow have a interest in. I think that many other sponsors feel it the same way. Sure and I'm agree about that. For example, my interests is mostly around KDE, and I really try to avoid python stuff. That kind of rules your two packages out for me. That's right, everyone has its own skills, but if nobody will do that the packages will be never uploaded in debian and some contributors can feel themselves discouraged. I browsed quickly thru those 20+ packages, and a lot of them hasn't been presented on debian-mentors. If they are just uploaded to mentors.dn and then left silent, then no one with notice. I have also seen discussions in other forums about some of the specific packages not presented on this list, so some people also just use mentors.dn to share the work with their 'normal' sponsors, and do the discussions outside this list, so that's also not a good metric. You're right, but I was talking for packages which has been presented in the debian-mentors mailing list. A recommended strategy is to package some apps that are interesting enough to get some DDs to work with you, and then you can also most likely get them to look at other of your stuff. That's the most commonly situation, in this case, if the package will look OK it will be uploaded soon. But the problem is that the people can't find always free DDs to work with they. And another often recommended strategy is to help with existing packages, rather than introducing new. Yes, I'm agree but if someone can't find the right package? if they want their own packages uploaded into debian? Until now I have always uploaded my work in ubuntu (the reason? I can't find a sponsor for my debian work). Kind regards, Lorenzo De Liso -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1276124766.32039.21.ca...@pc-lorenzo
Re: A lot of pending packages
Il giorno mer, 09/06/2010 alle 18.12 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ha scritto: I don't think you are going to get a lot of traction for any proposal that removes a DD from the upload process. So, lack of free DDs will always be a potential issue. I suggest you encourage people to become a DD. I know few DDs which are busy and sometimes they can't sponsor packages. Become a DD would be great but without a previous work for debian I don't think you can become a DD. Am I wrong? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1276125728.32039.25.ca...@pc-lorenzo
Re: A lot of pending packages
Hello, Il giorno gio, 10/06/2010 alle 09.31 +1000, Craig Small ha scritto: That's exactly how I work when sponsoring packages. I look after 7 of them and all 7 have a reason for being there. There is only 9 packages that are asking for sponsors. Whereas for me that would be my worst nightmare. A gui toolkit I don't use and haven't got install and a language I don't understand. However, the variety of interests and skills is a good thing. What Sune said is pretty good advice, you may also be able to ask people who look after similiar packages. I sponsored purple-plugin-pack because I maintaint pidgin-musictracker. Yes, what Sune said is right. But if it's supposed to be so then new uploads will be processed slowly or never. Kind regards, Lorenzo De Liso -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1276126628.32039.28.ca...@pc-lorenzo
Re: A lot of pending packages
Firstly, 7 days is a very short period of time to be waiting for sponsorship, some have been waiting since 2006. About your two packages: autotrash: sounds like the functionality should be part of GNOME/KDE, please talk to upstream about moving it there. ardentryst: seems like a good fit for the Debian games team: http://wiki.debian.org/Games/Team We would definitely welcome new people, especially if they want to work on other games than their own. Please note the games team is having slight sponsorship issues too. On to your mail The fact is that there just aren't enough people who have time and are interested in sponsoring. Reviewing packages takes up a lot of time to do properly, especially for new packages. It has been this way for as long as I can remember. To fix this situation, we need: More interest from DDs in sponsoring packages both within and outside their areas of interest. More motivation from DDs to spend more of their time on Debian and less on other things like work, personal life, etc. More interest from maintainers in putting effort into their packages. More interest from maintainers in keeping the packages on mentors.d.n up to date and automatic removal of mentors.d.n packages that haven't been updated in more than X months. More automated QA stuff for mentors.d.n and more visibility for that info so maintainers actually notice issues. Ways for maintainers to give answers to common sponsor questions along with their upload so that the overhead for sponsors is reduced. Some of the above is part of the proposed design for debexpo, which really needs folks to step up and work on it (hint hint). Other parts can be helped by sending DDs to DebConf, I've found that a big motivator. On a regular basis I look back through the -mentors archives for RFS threads with no replies and do a review of a few that look interesting. Most of the packages I look at during those reviews are definitely not of sufficient quality to make me comfortable uploading them. Many contain non-free stuff, lack source, FTBFS etc etc blah. After I review them, often there are no replies, followups or updates to the package at all. People posting RFS mails don't seem to put in the effort to make good packages, which reduces my motivation to deal with -mentors. And if I actually do an upload, then usually the maintainer looses interest in Debian or in the package and it sits there on my QA page gathering bugs and reducing my motivation. Sometimes the package is beyond my skill level (such as Java or complicated maintainer scripts) or written in languages I strongly dislike (PHP), which means I review part of the package and will not sponsor it. Personally I won't be actually sponsoring packages on a regular basis until debexpo is in better shape and gets deployed. The exceptions are the occasional QA upload, RC bug fix, team upload or (much less likely) when I'm actually impressed with the quality of the initial RFS of a package. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktikpoi1g9eqjvzbc-5xfruruu2dsopzfl97da...@mail.gmail.com
