Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (4398 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse] Packages from a user and Packager perspective
  • From: Pascal Bleser <pascal.bleser@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:48:25 +0200
  • Message-id: <431D8209.7040304@xxxxxxxxx>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Henne Vogelsang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tuesday, September 06, 2005 at 12:58:43, Pascal Bleser wrote:
>> Quality is definately the most important aspect, much more important
>> than quantity.
> The problem is identifying quality packages.
> One solution to this problem is identifying quality over quantity.
> Another one would be to let the whole of us decide and express our
> finding of quality in an easy way.

Hey, I was just giving my opinion on the subject :)
And I wasn't babbling: IMHO, it's a better situation for the end-users to have a little less
well-maintained packages than every single project out there but with RPMs that end up in
slaughtering your system.

> Im sure there are more ways to talke this problem.
> I myself find the "quality over quantity" approach not to good. I does
> not fit into my understanding of "open". And thats what we want to be.
> openSUSE not somepeopledecidesomenotSUSE..

Henne, who is deciding on what's going into the SUSE media or into the ISOs ?
... see ;)

I don't see your point. Anyone would be invited to join in. Anyone can apply.
But that involves:
- - being the committed maintainer of the package
- - accepting to be reviewed, at least in the beginning
- - follow some guidelines on how to write the packages
- - maybe also being on a central mailing-list with the other packagers

C'mon, it's the same on packman: someone sends an e-mail "hi I packaged this".
Would you just take his RPM and put it in the packman repository as-is, without reviewing or testing
it ?
And a few weeks later we get an e-mail "please update that package" or "there's a bug in that
package" and the person who originally sent us the RPM (or spec) doesn't reply to our e-mails or
doesn't have time to fix it.

Well, if you really want to let anyone submit RPMs just by uploading them into some FTP, we would at
the very least need separated repositories (stable, unstable, testing), to let users choose what
harm they want to do to their system ;)

Note that it's not exactly the same idea as Debian: with Debian, that "state" applies to the whole
distribution. We will still have a stable SUSE distribution every 6 months, so we won't run into
those issues. That stable/unstable/testing would apply to every single "3rd party" package itself.

testing = not reviewed, not tested
unstable = reviewed, not much tested
stable = reviewed, tested by at least x people

What would be nice, regarding that, is to have the possibility of letting users post their
experience with the packages through some web interface. When an "unstable" package has a certain
amount of positive feedback from users, it's being promoted to "stable".

And "testing" packages simply get promoted to "unstable" when they have been reviewed by at least 1
or 2 experienced packagers.

That's something I already discussed with RPMforge. IMHO it's a very good solution to a number of
potential issues, but most probably involves writing some software for it (the web frontend for
posting feedback).

cheers
- --
-o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
/\\ <pascal.bleser@xxxxxxxxx> <guru@xxxxxxxxxxx>
_\_v The more things change, the more they stay insane.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDHYIIr3NMWliFcXcRAgPtAJ4mDrzG9FDeTPei9zo6NaTqSCyxYwCgsJaO
VbkWxtS1YPLAoryoWvP/t6Y=
=eSh/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

< Previous Next >