FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-01-2012, 07:59 AM
Jonas Smedegaard
 
Default Maintainer responsible for or only doing maintenance?

On 12-05-31 at 06:08pm, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Donnerstag, 31. Mai 2012, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > You still avoid my question: What does "Maintainer:" mean?
>
> why do you ask rhetoric questions? It's defined in policy and you know
> it. So whats the point?

Context of my question is Bernd arguing that responsibility lies at the
uploader, not only for the contents of the upload but also for its
future maintenance.

My point is that either we are all wasting our time declaring a
meaningless "Maintainer:" control field, or Bernd is wrong and the
uploader responsibility is for the contents of the upload - which
includes stating who is then to be held responsible for the
maintainance.

In my interpretation, maintainer is expected to act responsibly.

Uploader is expected to act responsibly too: The act of uploading covers
ensuring the vailidy of statements in the packaging (which is especially
tricky for sponsoring of work outside our Web of Trust). The act of
uploading does *not* IMO cover ongoing maintenance of the package.

But you are right, let's simply look at Policy. I found this at 3.3:

> The maintainer is responsible for maintaining the Debian packaging
> files, evaluating and responding appropriately to reported bugs,
> uploading new versions of the package (either directly or through a
> sponsor), ensuring that the package is placed in the appropriate
> archive area and included in Debian releases as appropriate for the
> stability and utility of the package, and requesting removal of the
> package from the Debian distribution if it is no longer useful or
> maintainable.

Enrico told me (discretely, possibly assuming it was common knowledge to
the rest of the community) that "Maintainer:" is often a mailinglist
which cannot be in our WoT and therefore cannot be held responsible.
And that therefore the uploader really is the responsible party.

Let's see what is said about "Uploaders:" control field (again 3.3):

> If the maintainer of the package is a team of people with a shared
> email address, the `Uploaders' control field must be present and must
> contain at least one human with their personal email address. See
> Section 5.6.3, ``Uploaders' for the syntax of that field.

Hmm. Did you see that? According to Policy, maintainer is responsible -
even for the tasks done by uploaders - and uploaders are not defined as
responsible. I might be missing something, but searching all of Policy
I found only tools, scripts, authors (of the Policy document) and
maintainers to be described as responsible.

My point here is not to be nitpicking with Policy and claiming that
noone but maintainers are responsible - but I do find it quite hard to
fathom that maintainers are *not* responsible.

Did I miss something? Did Bernd perhaps simply mean that in *addition*
to maintainers, uploaders also have a bit of responsibility for some
things (but not maintenance which is what this thread is about)? Could
have helped me to understand what Bernd meant if he had simply answered
my direct question instead of talking around it answering question with
a counter-question,

Is my point clear now (even if is may disagree with my reasoning)?


- Jonas

--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
 
Old 06-01-2012, 09:19 AM
Russ Allbery
 
Default Maintainer responsible for or only doing maintenance?

Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> writes:

> My point is that either we are all wasting our time declaring a
> meaningless "Maintainer:" control field, or Bernd is wrong and the
> uploader responsibility is for the contents of the upload - which
> includes stating who is then to be held responsible for the
> maintainance.

> In my interpretation, maintainer is expected to act responsibly.

I think this is too stark, or at least I feel like my personal position on
this is part of an excluded middle.

For the specific case of sponsored packages, for exactly the reasons that
you have argued previously on this thread, we know that the package
maintainer's affiliation with (and often committment to) Debian may not be
as strong as the Debian Developer who is sponsoring the package.
Therefore, in the specific case of sponsored packages, while the package
maintainer is still responsible, we ask the sponsor to exercise some
oversight over that responsibility and be prepared to step in if the
maintainer is not fulfilling that responsibility for whatever reason.

I think we also, at least informally, recognize the sponsor has having
more control over the package than they normally would when they're not
the maintainer, precisely because with repsonsibility should come the
power to exercise that responsibility.

I don't know if this is all explicitly written down anywhere, but it's
certainly my feel of the general consensus and social expectations of the
people who discuss this sort of thing on debian-mentors.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87ipfb75ka.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu">http://lists.debian.org/87ipfb75ka.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu
 
Old 06-01-2012, 09:21 AM
Petter Reinholdtsen
 
Default Maintainer responsible for or only doing maintenance?

[Jonas Smedegaard]
> Is my point clear now (even if is may disagree with my reasoning)?

I find your point quite clear, but suspect you misunderstood those
claiming the sponsor have responsibilities regarding package
maintenance.

To me it is obvious that the sponsor is also responsible for a
package, when the maintainer become unresponsive or missing. When the
maintainer is active and available, the sponsor do not have to step in
and the responsibility is "sleeping".

The maintainer is responsible in the day to day maintenance, but when
I sponsor packages I also keep in mind that I might end up having to
care about the package some time in the future if the listed
maintainer looses interest or disappears for other reasons.

You seem to argue that this should not be the case. Is this because
of your current sponsor practice, or is there some other experience
behind your view on the responsibilities of a package sponsor in
Debian?
--
Happy hacking
Petter Reinholdtsen


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 2fl62bbmloo.fsf@login2.uio.no">http://lists.debian.org/2fl62bbmloo.fsf@login2.uio.no
 
Old 06-01-2012, 09:21 AM
Petter Reinholdtsen
 
Default Maintainer responsible for or only doing maintenance?

[Jonas Smedegaard]
> Is my point clear now (even if is may disagree with my reasoning)?

I find your point quite clear, but suspect you misunderstood those
claiming the sponsor have responsibilities regarding package
maintenance.

To me it is obvious that the sponsor is also responsible for a
package, when the maintainer become unresponsive or missing. When the
maintainer is active and available, the sponsor do not have to step in
and the responsibility is "sleeping".

The maintainer is responsible in the day to day maintenance, but when
I sponsor packages I also keep in mind that I might end up having to
care about the package some time in the future if the listed
maintainer looses interest or disappears for other reasons.

You seem to argue that this should not be the case. Is this because
of your current sponsor practice, or is there some other experience
behind your view on the responsibilities of a package sponsor in
Debian?
--
Happy hacking
Petter Reinholdtsen


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 2fl62bbmloo.fsf@login2.uio.no">http://lists.debian.org/2fl62bbmloo.fsf@login2.uio.no
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:40 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org