On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Monday, July 25, 2011 12:42:49 PM Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote: > ... >> I agree that it is confusing, but I don't think it has to be. The >> ArchiveReorganisation[1] wiki page hasn't been edited in the last 2 >> years and it hasn't been revisited at UDS. The process is effectively >> stalled for now. The Components[2] sub-page says that there would no >> longer be a separate main and universe and that MOTU (I guess it will >> need a new name since it would technically be something different) would >> take care of unseeded packages. > ... > > At UDS for Karmic (Barcelona) we had a session that defined the current state > of things. We discussed renaming MOTU and decided against it. IMO this sort > of "Oh, it's different now ..." "MOTU will need to be renamed ..." discussion > is counter productive and adds to the confusion.
"Masters of the Unseeded" was the new backronym I heard. > As far as I'm aware, no restrictive package sets have been implemented yet > that would prevent MOTU from uploading non-Main packages, so while there is a > lot of theory, nothing has actually changed for MOTU. What has changed is > packagesets (and PPU) that give people most limited access to upload that are > not MOTU. There was a discussion about it on IRC last week starting at http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/07/18/%23ubuntu-devel.html#t20:43 In particular, this is the part about whether MOTU can or can't touch packages in package sets... <maco> so should we make it a habit of making teams to match when we make new packagesets? <persia> Considering that AA always took care of components, we probably ought adjust packageset change permissions to be union of DMB and AA or similar. <cjwatson> yes. but that is Hard. <cjwatson> (AIUI.) <persia> Unless we expect the DMB to take over regular migration of stuff for transitions, etc. <cjwatson> maco: it's probably the most practical approach <persia> cjwatson: It's hard to have a union of teams. It's not hard to have a team with membership limited to AA+DMB that owns the packageset. That said, it needs discussion and consensus before being done. <maco> cjwatson: so then we just ask the TB "can you make packageset $name with packages x,y,z and permissions to $team" and then never have to bug you about that packageset again (for the most part...until it needs a new package) <persia> When we approve a PPU, does this necessitate the creation of a packageset? <maco> persia: we often vote to create a packageset if the set being requested seems reusable or is copied off someone else and is therefore obviously being reused <persia> maco: Right, when there is a team. My concern is that we grant packageset teams exclusive authority over packages unique to their packagesets (which is why packageset teams are required to have core-dev as a member). <maco> persia: i did not know of this requirement <micahg> persia: in terms of Archive Reorg, I don't think PPU should have a packageset <persia> This is incompatible with our statement that we *do not* grant exclusive authority over packages for PPUs, once MOTU is implemented as the inverse of all packagesets. <geser> maco: if the package set is DMB-owned (some are like mozilla, zope and some others) the DMB can add and remove packages from it once the TB created the package set <persia> maco: Failure to abide by the requirement today has a low penalty, as Soyuz still supports component-based permissions. -- Mackenzie Morgan -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
