On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, Dusty Phillips wrote:
For the record, there is already maintainer information stored in the .db.tar.gz -- I don't know where it comes from but I noticed it there when I was debugging the last issue.
What you saw was probably the packager info which is not the same as the maintainer.
Another option is automatically setting the maintainer flag to whoever updates the package. There could be an override to the command or hook that does this so that people can update other people's packages when necessary.
That seems messy. Especially for things as x86_64 builds and testing rebuilds.
Dusty
2008/9/20 Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com>:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Dusty Phillips <buchuki@gmail.com> wrote:
2008/9/20 Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de>:
Hey devs,
I think our current method of organizing maintainership of packages is not optimal. One problem is that we loose those meta information from time to time (we have 2667 orphaned packages atm). Also the webinterface for adopting packages is not the best solution I could think of. You have to adopt every single arch and if you put a package into testing you'll have to adopt it again.
On the other side we have the Maintainer tag within our PKGBUILDs since a long time, but we don't make use of it. My idea would be parsing those tags (multipile maintainers should be possible) with makepkg and put those information in every package. In addition to this repo-add should store this data in the db-files, too.
I see a few problems/issues here. 1) Maintainer is a shell script comment. This means it is completely ignored by makepkg, and I will NOT manually parse the file for this one piece of information, it is just not worth it. 2) Your name will end up in packages you never built. Anyone building a package from ABS and customizing it doesn't delete the maintainer tag, and then people will come to you with questions about pidgin-awesome or something and you will have no idea what they are talking about. 3) All of this pertains only to organizational issues. Personal users of makepkg have no real use for this.
That would make things a lot easier, more robust (we have all data stored in svn) and consistent. This would also decrease the complexity of the webfrontend a lot; it allready reads data from the sync-dbs.
And last but not least support could be added to pacman to display the mainter(s). ATM it only shows the packager which confuses some people.
I'm all for it; it would make the web interface more robust. I don't think the issue with packages being orphaned will come up again, but having that data accurate in each PKGBUILD and .pkg.tar.gz file would make the entire world a much better place. (Especially greenland)
I see the problem we are trying to solve, but I'm not convinced this is the best way to do it. I wish I had an idea to propose though...
-Dan
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.