On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:25:50 +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> However, Xavier Oswald, who maintains a number of libauthen-*-perl
> packages has objections on that last part. See the attached IRC log for
> details.
Thanks Xavier for bringing your concerns up on IRC, and thanks Dam
for bringing the issue to the list.
> One approach out that I see is to revert the DM-part of the group policy
> and instead refuse to use DM-Upload-Allowed in all our packages. AFAIK
> it is set only for one package -- libdevice-cdio-perl and Tincho has not
> yet taken advantage of it.
I think there are several questions. I'll try to put them in some
order and add my personal opinions about them.
* Do we want to use DM-Upload-Allowed? If no, problem solved :)
I think the concept is useful in general even if we don't really
use it at the moment.
* If yes we have to decide on the procedure; the last discussion has
led to what we have now in our Policy; IIRC the other alternative
was to set DM-Upload-Allowed on all packages, but that was not
really considered a good solution. I could live with both although
I have a better gut feeling with the current approach than with the
wide-open one.
* If we stick with current Policy we have the recent issue of
"linking" (non-DD and non-DM-for-that-package) people to packages;
IIRC the last discussion showed that being credited by the
changelog entries is enough for the people who answered; that's
still true for me. But that doesn't solve the issue of "public
visibility":
- If visibility is a desire for ones own overview on the DDPO page
I think the subscription feature on http://qa.debian.org/developer.php
would do the job.
- If it's about showing others (during NM, e.g.) the packages
worked on I guess a pointer to the svn logs and/or a mail from
some pkg-perl regular should do the job.
- Another option might be to add a (XSB-)Co-Maintainer field to our
packages; I think this has been discussed to. IMO it would be a
logical separation of "people being allowed to upload $pkg" and
"people working on and feeling responsible for $pkg";
unfortunately the field wouldn't show up very prominently
anywhere (unless someone changes Debian Policy :))
Other ways to "escape" the problem are of course:
- become a DM and get the upload rights for some packages activated
- don't maintain the package within the group (but that's something
I wouldn't suggest as I consider group maintenance superior)
Personally I'm quite content with the current situation; I even
consider not being in the Uploaders' field for each package I've
ever touched an advantage with regard to the visibility of my DDPO
page :) (but that's my working style, to help out with many
packages instead of concentrating on a few, which is perfectly OK
IMO too.)
From my POV there are no changes needed; still I'd like to find a way
to deal with Xavier's legitimate concerns but I'm not sure if my
above thoughts really help.
Cheers,
gregor
--
.''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ | gpg key ID: 0x00F3CFE4
: :' : debian: the universal operating system - http://www.debian.org/
`. `' member of https://www.vibe.at/ | how to reply: http://got.to/quote/
`- NP: Bruce Springsteen: Let's Be Friends (Skin to Skin)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature