[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: Proposal: a more general and flexible appoach of packages.



OOps... took out the wrong addresses in the CC field...

When maintainer's change, who's going to change the subscription list?  The
physical maintainer's via a "(un)subscribe" message?  That would still leave
things in the hands of a physical maintainer... Automaticly from a package
upload would still be suseptable to outdated packages... A volunteer?

On 11-Dec-98 joost@pc47.mpn.cp.philips.com wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Martin Schulze wrote:
> 
>> packages.debian.org@packages.debian.org should be a valid address.  Would
>> that be sufficient for you?
> 
> "packages.debian.org@packages.debian.org"  ?
> 
>   **dazzle**
> 
> With an email address like that, there must be a great idea behind it :-)
> 
> Seriously, packages@packages.debian.org, secretary@debian.org and
> whatever else could reasonable be expected to be considered "intuitive",
> "logical" and "sensible" by anyone trying to find the right guy to write
> to should also know how to deal with administrative requests re. the
> packages lists.  "packages.debian.org@packages.debian.org" is a real gem
> though, I must admit and I love it :-)
> 
> I would like to extend the current proposal more generally with regard to 
> the notion of a "package", but first I would like to write down some of
> my opinions of how the packages.debian.org lists should be implemented:
> 
> 1 - for every package "foo", there should automatically be a mailinglist
>   foo@packages.debian.org.  The maintainer of "foo" must always be on the
>   mailinglist, but others might subscribe or be subscribed (see below) as
>   well.
> 
> 2 - the foo@packages list should be the primary contact address for all
>   things related to the "foo" package, e.g all bugreports should be
>   forwarded to this list.
> 
> 3 - the "main" maintainer of "foo" and the packages.debian.org lists
>   maintainer should have administrative powers for the foo@packages list.
> 
> 4 - preferrably, packages.debian.org lists should be open to public
>   subscription, optionally with a system defaulting read-only access, 
>   with more rights grantable by the list administrator. 
> 
> 5 - for every virtual package "bar", there should equally be a
>   bar@packages list.  The joint maintainers of all real packages providing
>   a virtual package "bar" should agree on an administrator.  
> 
> IMHO ideally, policy should state that more generally, a virtual package
> needs to have a maintainer, appointed or chosen from the group of
> maintainers of all real packages providing the virtual package.  Apart
> from the intrinsic benefits of symmetry and clarity, this would
> particularly obviate the need to make a special case for rule 5, by
> folding it back into rule 1. 
> 
> Moreover, "special-interest packages"  (or focus groups) could be
> formalized and get a baz@packages list. Without any package actually
> providing "baz," a lot of packages could be involved with or affected by
> "baz."  Think "xfree," "perl," python," "webserver," "emacs" or "base" 
> instead of "baz"  and it makes a lot of practical sense to do this. 
> 
> Again, a central responsible person should be appointed (chosen.)  Again,
> the benefits of the more generalised and standardised speak for
> themselves:  more standardisation and symmetry, no need to spam -devel
> with very detailed and topical discussions, better addressing of
> responsibilities not by enforcement, but by creating clarity and an
> infrastructure for focused debate.
> 
> Briefly returning back to the initial issue of packages.debian.org lists:
> 
> By rule 1, we'll have an intuitive contact address for each package in the
> distribution.  
> 
> By rule 2, it will also be a guaranteed address.  
> 
> By rule 3 and 4, the individual maintainer is free to use "his" list for
> whatever style of development he likes (without having to buy into the
> particularities of whatever MTA.)
> 
> Another great benefit of this scheme is that when a maintainer goes AWOL,
> the project secretary (or his delegate for maintainer maintenance) can
> easily reset the main maintainer [subscription] address and best of all,
> there will be no history problems, as foo@packages will always point to
> the current maintainer of package "foo."
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Joost
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> 
> 
> 

=========================================================================
* http://benham.net/index.html                                     <><  *
* -------------------- * -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- ---------------*
*    Darren Benham     * Version: 3.1                                   *
*  <gecko@benham.net>  * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++>++++ P+++$ L++>++++*
*                      * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS--   *
*   Debian Developer   * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b++++ DI+++ D++   *
*  <gecko@debian.org>  * G++>G+++ e h+ r* y+                            *
* -------------------- * ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ---------------*
=========================================================================

Attachment: pgpQuV1q5ubL0.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: