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

Re: hpc team

On December 25, 2017 12:12:09 PM EST, Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org> wrote:
>On 23/12/2017 08:46, Afif Elghraoui wrote:
>>> Team mailing lists are very much fine. There are
>>> many examples of those on
>>> They existed for years now. I do not expect listmasters to remove
>> I know at least for debian-med, debian-science, and debian-python,
>> also have mailing lists on alioth, which they use in the maintainer
>> fields. The lists.debian.org address is only used for general
>Yeah, that's quite common in fact. Many team are using @lists.d.o
>in Maintainers fields and as a general contact address.

That's not what I said. Only the alioth mailing lists have been used in Maintainer fields from what I've seen. Anyway, this is being discussed on -devel right now (in the responses to the alioth replacement announcement), and it's been quite clearly stated that using an l.d.omailing list in the Maintainer field is not allowed

>> I found a lead on my question on the same page I linked previously
>>> Can e-mail addresses of the form <package>@tracker.debian.org be
>>> as maintainer team address in Maintainer or Uploader fields of
>>> package? not yet. ftp-master needs to be fixed, see above.
>> and, above, it says [2]:
>>> For the maintainer field, the <package>@packages.debian.org address
>>> should be used (although that needs the fix for 871575 to be
>>> on ftp-master, see this discussion for details
>> <https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2017/09/msg00272.html>.
>> Although it looks like this has happened already (at least, that bug
>> fixed in stretch-backports). Maybe we can already start using
>> Maintainer: Debian HPC Team <packagename@packages.debian.org>
>I have to admit that I don't like it because this approach is still
>young and not all tools are ready yet (e.g., DDPO and Tracker itself).
>For example, have a look at the following packages:
>- https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/siridb-server
>- https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libcleri
>The maintainer box is not even shown. Those two packages are btw the
>ones using the schema you are referring to.
>On DDPO, it is even more misleading:
>People unfamiliar with our tools may believe SiriDB Maintainers are
>maintaining one single package, while it is not.
>IMHO, it may be a reasonable goal to set in the long term. I don't
>think it
>is the best plan today (given the state of our tools).

According to the thread on -devel, it looks like we don't have a choice other than to start using this new scheme.

I'm sorry for the absence of links. I'm not in a position to retrieve them right now.


Reply to: