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 04-16-2008, 11:08 AM
"Ondrej Certik"
 
Default uploading new binary packages from a DM approved source package

Hi,

if I want to packge a new upstream version of DM-Upload-Allowed
library (for example [1]), it changes the name of the binary package
and thus goes to NEW.

Last time I asked it wasn't possible for me, as a DM, to upload it and
I had to search for a sponsor.

Is there some policital reason for that, or is it just because noone
has yet implemented it in the scripts? If the latter case, how can I
help?

Ondrej

[1] http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/libmesh


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 04-16-2008, 11:34 AM
Bas Wijnen
 
Default uploading new binary packages from a DM approved source package

Hi,

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 01:08:05PM +0200, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> if I want to packge a new upstream version of DM-Upload-Allowed
> library (for example [1]), it changes the name of the binary package
> and thus goes to NEW.
>
> Last time I asked it wasn't possible for me, as a DM, to upload it and
> I had to search for a sponsor.
>
> Is there some policital reason for that,

Yes. DMs are not as thoroughly checked as DDs, and thus have less
rights to change things in the archive. The idea is that they should be
allowed to upload packages they already maintain, but not add new ones.
This is true both for new source, and new binary packages.

A library soname transition is a binary package name change for
technical reasons. IMO there isn't really a good reason to send them
through NEW at all, but that's how the scripts work. And it's not that
bad, it makes sure there's an extra check on each soname bump, which can
be useful. It does also mean that DMs need a sponsor for the upload,
but that should be acceptable as well.

> or is it just because noone has yet implemented it in the scripts? If
> the latter case, how can I help?

If you can build consensus on the fact that soname bumps shouldn't go
through NEW, then you could implement that technically. But I don't
think you will be able to. In fact, most people might well think that
soname bumps should indeed go through NEW, and that that is not a bug.

Personally I didn't really think about it. I've never considered it a
problem, but wouldn't consider it a problem if they don't go through NEW
either.

Thanks,
Bas

--
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html
 
Old 04-16-2008, 11:36 AM
"Ondrej Certik"
 
Default uploading new binary packages from a DM approved source package

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Bas Wijnen <wijnen@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 01:08:05PM +0200, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> > if I want to packge a new upstream version of DM-Upload-Allowed
> > library (for example [1]), it changes the name of the binary package
> > and thus goes to NEW.
> >
> > Last time I asked it wasn't possible for me, as a DM, to upload it and
> > I had to search for a sponsor.
> >
> > Is there some policital reason for that,
>
> Yes. DMs are not as thoroughly checked as DDs, and thus have less
> rights to change things in the archive. The idea is that they should be
> allowed to upload packages they already maintain, but not add new ones.
> This is true both for new source, and new binary packages.

I completely agree they shouldn't be able to add new packages.

>
> A library soname transition is a binary package name change for
> technical reasons.

Exactly, that's why I think it could be resolved somehow, see for
example my suggestion below.

> IMO there isn't really a good reason to send them
> through NEW at all, but that's how the scripts work. And it's not that
> bad, it makes sure there's an extra check on each soname bump, which can
> be useful. It does also mean that DMs need a sponsor for the upload,
> but that should be acceptable as well.
>
>
> > or is it just because noone has yet implemented it in the scripts? If
> > the latter case, how can I help?
>
> If you can build consensus on the fact that soname bumps shouldn't go
> through NEW, then you could implement that technically. But I don't
> think you will be able to. In fact, most people might well think that
> soname bumps should indeed go through NEW, and that that is not a bug.
>
> Personally I didn't really think about it. I've never considered it a
> problem, but wouldn't consider it a problem if they don't go through NEW
> either.

Right. Well, how about changing the DM scripts to allow DMs to upload
new sonames to NEW? (And only new sonames). I.e. not accepting
completely new binary package (and of course not accepting a new
source package).

That way it will still be checked and yet the DM will not have to
search for a sponsor.

Ondrej


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:15 AM.

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