Bug#377282: mail to pkg@PTS not delivered to maintainer by default
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * martin f krafft [Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:17:18 +0200]:
>
> > Great, so I'll try to "clean up" the database then with a script,
> > which:
>
> > 1. iterates all packages and extracts sourcepkg:maintainer pairs
> > 2. checks whether maintainer is subscribed to sourcepkg@pts
> > a. if no, subscribe the maintainer, thereby getting contact on
> > by default.
> > b. if yes, checks whether the contact keyword is present for
> > the sourcepkg:maintainer pair
> > i) if no, adds the contact keyword to the pair.
>
> So this is a script to be run periodically?
Yes.
> What happens when a package changes maintainer, who unsubscribes the
> prior maintainer from the contact address? What if they were previously
> subscribed?
Right, this will need some special-casing. The same script should also
handle unsubscriptions. Automatic subscriptions and unsubscriptions should
probably generate a mail to inform the maintainer. The subscription mail
should indicate him the set of keywords that he's subscribed to and what
additional information he can subscribe to by activating other keywords.
Providing a link like this will let him adjust his keywords easily:
http://packages.qa.debian.org/cgi-bin/pts.cgi?package=dpkg&email=hertzog@debian.org&what=advanced
The automatic unsubscription should require a confirmation email. In that
way, if he was already subscribed, he can decide to stay subscribed by not
replying to the confirmation mail.
> I haven't read the Wiki page (at least not this year), but I think it's
> more reasonable to do what I had in my TODO list last year: have
> packages.debian.org deliver mail both to the Maintainer: address, and to
> the PTS via _default (or _contact, if so wished by the PTS maintainers).
We still have the problem that people mailing the PTS directly won't reach
the maintainer. And the PTS provides some information that the maintainer
doesn't get if he doesn't explicitely subscribe to it (information about
changes made in derivatives distribution for example).
So in the long term, I think it makes more sense to have the PTS channel
everything and handling properly the package maintainer even if we
have to special case him somewhat.
> You save writing a messy script, and there're no issues with subscription
> and unsubscription. Then you can concentrate on the other half of the
> task (which is of course also necessary with the script approach), that
> is: giving packages.debian.org a binary -> source map in an useable
> form.
This part shouldn't be too difficult. The build-maintainerdb script
is apparently used to create the alias file currently.
http://cvs.debian.org/packages/bin/?root=webwml
packages.d.o already has a DB with all the informations
including the source -> binary map.
Frank, would you be ready to change that script so that it generates an
alias file systematically pointing to
<source>_contact@packages.qa.debian.org ?
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Reply to: