Co-maintainership of base packages by the debian-boot team?
>>>>> "Adam" == Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com> writes:
Adam> Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> writes:
>> [ ... ]
>> all the disgusting stuff basedisks.sh has to do in the boot-floppies to
>> create a debian base system. A lot of packages need to be cleaned up
>> before we can just dpkg -i `cat base-debs` and have it work. I'd prefer
>> to go with something that already works here to save time on the first
>> cut.
Adam> Yes. More care should be given to the base set. We need to file bugs
Adam> now, and agressively, against them.
I have a better idea. Let's take out the "middle man" somewhat...
Adam> A lot of people blame bf for delaying release but in fact we spent
Adam> much of our time waiting for fixes in base or kernels.
Why wait around for someone else, who may be busy with something in
their own immediate surroundings? I think we should *negotiate* to
become co-maintainer's of those packages. Perhaps we should
institute this in Policy? That the `debian-boot' team is the
co-maintainer of each base package, giving us rights to make uploads,
etc??? Should I attempt to draft a proposal? That would make each
of the maintainers of base packages a member of our team. Each would
retain main control over their package perhaps?
[potential other thread here] ... those packages ought to be CVS
tracked where we can all get at them also. Vendor tracked. Strict
rules about how CVS is to be used, akin to what the DRI people use,
perhaps?
http://dri.sourceforge.net/cvspolicy.txt
... that and a tagging scheme something like how `cvs-buildpackage'
is supposed to work? What do yous think?
To keep control over the package in the hands of the maintainer
(perhaps not necessary in all cases, but is in some), we could create
a patch queue mailing list for each one. Each team member keeps an
anoncvs checkout of them. When you modify something, you create a
patch and ChangeLog, and mail it to the patch queue for that package,
for the maintainer to review, reject or approve, apply, and commit.
(This is how the XEmacs team handles it.)
This model might work well for the entire Debian distribution, in
fact. Not all packages need be vendor tracked, perhaps? Some are
already in CVS and the maintainers are in close cahoots with the
"upstream" maintainers. How can we make this work, so that we get
along with the coopetition? Will `subversions' support this model?
We need a shared calendar too... another thread... started.
... and webcams w/voice....
--
We should not penalize the conscientious to coddle those who run brain-dead software.
I am karlheg, of deB.ORG. You will be freed. Resistance is useful.
mailto:karlheg@debian.org (Karl M. Hegbloom)
http://www.debian.org/~karlheg
Reply to: