Bug#736715: PTS shouldn't list packages under their maintainer in stable

[Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org>]

Hi!

On Sun, 2014-01-26 at 13:16:23 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Package: qa.debian.org
> Severity: normal

> It is confusing that pages like
>   http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=packages@qa.debian.org
> list whoever maintained packages also under whoever is listed in
> the maintainer field in stable - that person might have given up
> maintainership of the package many years ago (or here in the case
> of packages@qa.debian.org, it is no longer of any interest for QA
> since it does now have a maintainer).
> 
> As an example, when looking for where a QA upload might make sense
> for reducing differences with Ubuntu, I am not interested in seeing
> the wmii package listed - that package is no longer maintained by QA.
> 
> I'd expect the maintainer in unstable to be the one and only being
> responsible for all versions of the package.
> 
> When there are different maintainers in unstable and experimental,
> I see the point of listing a package under both since it is not
> trivial to see which maintainer information is more recent, and that
> would usually anyway be resolved soon with a new upload.

Indeed, I've been hit by this and it's pretty annoying, for almost half
the packages from my main section, I'm not (co-)maintainer any longer:

  <http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=guillem>

which just clutters the view, and makes it quite distracting.

> Additional information from the discussion on #debian-qa :
> 
> 12:33 < noshadow> looks like developer.php gets the information from database 
>                   files, so it looks more like a show or not show and no easy 
>                   graying out those where one is only maintainer in stable.
> 12:46 < noshadow> reading the source it looks like something in oldstable 
>                   should not show up. And if the examples I tried were correct 
>                   it indeed does not show up. So from the code it looks like it 
>                   was an explicit decision to have stable packages show up 
>                   there (but oldstable not).
> 12:49 < noshadow> stable stable-proposed-updates testing 
>                   testing-proposed-updates experimental and unstable are taken 
>                   for maintainer information while 
>                   oldstable{,/updates,-proposed-update} stable-updates 
>                   stable/updates testing/updates are not.
> 12:51 < noshadow> svn.debian.org/svn/qa/trunk  date/ddpo/extract_archive.pl 
>                   line 139 the ', 1' part
> 12:52 < bunk> noshadow: IMHO unstable (and perhaps experimental) are the only 
>               suites that make sense for checking maintainer information
> 12:54 < noshadow> bunk: I guess the interesting part in suggesting the change 
>                   is finding out what else used that maintainer information 
>                   from archive.db

This regression seems to be due to #566637, commit r2626. I've taken a
quick look and archive.db seems to only be used by:

  data/dm-permissions/dm-permissions.pl
    Does not really use the db, the accesses are commented out.

  wml/popcon.wml
    Only seems to access the list of binary packages key “bin:$package”.
  data/popcon/extract_popcon-tobdb.py
    Does not seem to care about name: nor com: keys (?).

  wml/developer.wml
  cgi-bin/bts-graphs
    It seems these two are the only ones affected, and will have the same
    problem, by showing information for packages not (co-)maintained by
    the email address any longer.

The other file generated from data/ddpo/extract_archive.pl, is
maintainers.txt which is only being used by wml/developer.wml.

Thanks,
Guillem