On Mon Mar 16 13:30, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > There are different kinds of packages in debian that require different > skills: > > - binary packages, data packages > - simple library packages > - mixed binary/library/data packages > > Also there is a big difference between the NEW packages and existing > packages. Getting things right the first time is much more difficult > than keeping a package current. > > So why not have a set of rights. Initially people only have right to > maintain a package and all uploads must be sponsored. After some > successfull uploads the maintainer could get rights to upload existing > packages. After a few new binary debs (e.g. soname transitions of a > library) he could gain rights to upload new binary debs for existing > sources to NEW. And if someone shows an aptitude for creating new > source package and judging license issues then he could gain that > right. > > This could also be coupled with steps in the NM > process. E.g. the Task&Skill section would be required before any > upload rights. I'd really like this, but I thought it was a bit radical to suggest all at once! > On the other hand I don't see why someone needs to maintain a package > master packaging to get access to debian-private? Something a > translator wouldn't need at all. Absolutely > Becoming a member with minimal rights should be easy. That is where I > think DM goes totaly wrong. It makes uploads easier and becoming a > member harder. > > For example a maintainer should have rights to log into debian > machines and track down bugs in their package before they have the > right to upload on their own. Let them demonstrate they can fix bugs > even on architectures other than their own. Yup, this is what I'd like to see as well. So far I don't think I've seen anyone objecting to the overall approach though, which is good. I think it allows us to start discussing more specific implementation details. Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature