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

Re: Debian services and Debian infrastructure

On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 12:05:18PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:

> > 1. to improve communication between DSA and service maintainers
> >    + have an archived, public list where (prospective) service maintainers
> >      can engage with DSA about stuff they are planning/thinking about.
> >      (Maybe recycle debian-admin@l.d.o, or use debian-services-admin@l.d.o?)
> debian-services-admin@l.d.o seems to be rather appropriate for this (it's
> unlikely that this kind of discussion would generate so much mail that the
> list could no longer serve its current purpose).

debian-services-admin@l.d.o seems to me, too, to be the perfect place
for it.

> It would also be helpful to have a document explaining their usual
> requirements. It would pro-actively direct the service maintainers towards
> choices that are acceptable to DSA.
> Things like:
> - use PostgreSQL if you need a DB
> - keep in mind that DSA likes to ensure high-availability, so make it easy
>   to run a replicate of your service
> - avoid dependencies not in stable or stable-backports
> - avoid X, Y, Z for security reasons
> - etc.

Also agreed. It sounds to me like a specifications of the production
environment where things will be deployed, and it's something that as a
developer I should see sooner rather than later.

> > 2. to improve the tracking of services
> >    + request wiki pages from maintainers that detail who are the contact 
> >      points, what the service does, what are its requirements. State a
> >      "service level agreement" (informative of expectations, not punitive,
> >      of course)
> >    + have service maintainers create similar pages for services in 
> >      development, to provide some kind of "incubation process" during which
> >      DSA can provide feedback.
> This would be good to have but (someone|DSA) would have to prod service
> maintainers to get this started, otherwise it will never happen. This
> requirement could also be mentioned in the document I suggested earlier.

I think we already have something very close to this description here:



GPG key: 4096R/E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: