On Thursday, February 17, 2011 03:08:15 pm Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Feb 17, 2011, at 06:51 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >1. From the LEP: Disabling dput uploads is not a nice to have. It's a > >misfeature that violates (AIUI) one of the core assumptions given to > >Ubuntu developers when this project was started: That we are free to > >ignore it. I find it very troubling that it's listed as a goal of any > >kind (the discussion about being able to enforce the use of merge > >proposals convinces me this is not accidental). > > Are you saying that you want to preserve dput as an upload option forever? > Do you see a future where dput *isn't* the interface for uploading a new > package? Let's assume that all the current blockers are fixed, e.g. source > packages are fast to download, etc. > > I think at some point there should be only one way to do it.
Perhaps at some point, but that's not in the foreseable future. I know many people view it differently, but I still find the UDD experience substantially inferior to the way I've always done things. The main benefit that is realizable from UDD for me, we already have (the history to see when a change was introduced). We do have it as a project value to make it easy for Debian developers who are interested in their packages in Ubuntu to be able to work on them in Ubuntu. If the ability to do traditional uploads were to be removed, that would raise a toolset barrier to entry for this class of developer that I think we should consider carefully before taking on. > >2. From my recollection of recent mail list discussions: I recall an issue > >where an existing branch can be made official, but the owner of the branch > >could retain access to the branch even if they didn't have upload rights > >for the package. This must be fixed before build from branch is enabled > >in the main archive. > > Agreed. I wonder how this push-to-official-branch can work with package > sets, and whether making upload-rights equivalent to push-rights helps > provide a finer grained control over who can upload what packages. > > That's assuming you think better control over upload rights is a good > thing. Being in a (hopefully short-term) limbo, I do. :) My main concern is to ensure build-from-branch doesn't give someone the right to put a package in the archive that doesn't already have it. > >3. From my earlier experiments with UDD: I recall issues with the md5sum > >of the generated tarball matching upstream in preference to matching > >Debian. Debian is (mostly) our immediate upstream and needs to be the > >preferred source (it may be reasonable to provide an option to pull from > >upstream in cases it's preferred). > > That's for cases where Debian uses a different tarball, for example, > because upstream's has non-free elements to it. There are a variety of reason why this would be the case, but except for the handful of packages where Ubuntu is effectively upstream of Debian, I see no reason not to prefer Debian as a tarball source over upstream and many, many cases where this is a good thing. It's not always predictable which packages will have a different md5sum, so I don't think this is something that can be papered over for later on the basis that it doesn't affect certain packages. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
