On 11/02/2010 10:09 PM, Stephan Kleine wrote:
On Wednesday November 3 2010 01:17:58 Robert
On 11/02/2010 07:44 PM, Stephan Kleine wrote:
On Tuesday November 2 2010 21:37:56 Robert
On 11/02/2010 04:24 PM, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
> simple answer: you need to define a maintenance policy for contrib.
> the current policy is the same as the distro. that means no version
> updates just backports after contrib got frozen for a distro release.
> if you leave it open for version update you have no real stable base
> for people to work with.
I did not mean to imply that the policy for contrib should change. It
should be a stable/frozen repo as it is today.
For example, a developer at company X that writes perl code for their
application shouldn't have to add devel:languages:perl to get
perl-critic as the developer now uses a moving repo and one zypper up
could potentially cause major issues. (Just to stick to the example that
I already used).
> if you keep the current policy many people wouldnt have the resources
> or time to maintain all the packages with that policy. thats why many
> people dont want their packages in the distro or contrib. (me
I am trying to find a way to make it easier for people to get their
packages into the "stable/frozen" world. I think this will encourage
contributions. Maybe we need another per package flag, "OK_FOR_CONTRIB"
lets the packager indicate this package can be auto collected.
That leaves out the main issue. The stuff in Contrib is version frozen
and therefore any security fixes need to be backported and the packages
in there need to be maintained.
Who will do that? If the original submitter is
willing to do that he
prolly will already submit it to Contrib
This is where I disagree. I am saying that the process of getting a
package into Contrib or Factory is not as straight forward as it should
be. There are too many steps. To get something into contrib or factory
one has to
- create the package(s) in home:
- submit to a devel project
- get added to the list of maintainers for the devel project
- submit the package(s) again to factory or contrib
Submitting the same stuff multiple times is not intuitive. I would guess
most people will stop after the first submit step even if they are
willing to do the maintenance work. This just means that the package
never sees "the light of day", meaning the package is not available to
users that do not add devel repos to their system.
Well, IMHO, the default assumption that the one who submits something to some
devel project also wants to comply with the version restrictions in Contrib or
Factory is wrong. E.g. I have several packages I needs as deps which I update
when I see it fit and file SRs against their devel projects but I absolutely
do not want to maintain them in any way as in being responsible for them in
some way while having to do more than upstream does (e.g. backporting security
Well, then maybe the policy needs to be looked at, as Lars pointed out.
Following a "simple maintenance model" of bumping the version to get
upstream bug fixes would be a lot less work and might be a sufficient
relaxation to get more people to contribute packages.
When I contribute a patch to a project I only
submit the patch once, if
I only care that it gets into the development tree which eventually gets
released. All I have to do is the development work, create the patch,
and submit it to a mailing list, attach to bug report, or send it to
someone with commit access. One patch one commit, simple. This is the
way it should be with packages. If I create a package and am willing to
maintain it I should be able to get the package into :Factory or
:Contrib without having to do multiple submit requests for the same
package (plus get added to some "magic" list of users of a given devel
so I don't see how that will change besides
collecting more unmaintained packages in Contrib which isn't really what
we should want.
I am not advocating to have more packages for the sake of having more
packages. Packages in :Factory and :Contrib should be of high quality
and be maintained. No question about it.
I'm not sure if I am getting you right, do you mean
1. Make it a default for all?
Not necessarily, but a flag (OK_FOR_FACTORY as suggested in another
e-mail) might be sufficient to indicate that a packager who is
submitting a package to a devel project would like to see the package
pushed into factory. The flag could be interpreted such that these
packages get automatically collected and pushed to :Factory, or that a
maintainer of the given devel project is on the hook to do this manually.
Then the above holds. My main point simply is that
anyone who is comfortable
to comply with the policy for Contrib or Factory will also have no problem
filling one more SR to get his stuff in there.
It is more than just a second SR. One also has to be a maintainer of the
given devel project from which the package is supposed to be pushed into
:Factory. Thus, this implies that the original packager now either needs
to become a maintainer of the given devel project (meaning one has to
figure that out) or pick a maintainer of the devel project and ask the
maintainer to submit an SR. There are just too many touchpoints.
2. Just make it easier to import packages for people who certainly will comply
with the policy?
E.g. you are paid by Novell to maintain package X so you are just interested
in porting package X from some internal packages to the public OBS? Then just
add some option to "osc sr".
I guess my point simply is that I'm strongly against anything that makes it
Well, in that case we really have no business in looking over the fence
with envy and say, look distro X has a ton more packages and a lot more
contributors. And then ask, how do we get there. We do not get there by
making things difficult, that much I know.
("easier" ~ filing _2_ SRs)
There is more involved than just filing 2 SRs ;)
to get stuff into Contrib or Factory
since it would just lead to loads of "dead" / unmaintained packages (which
lowers the promised quality) drop & forget style.
Not necessarily. We could track the origination of packages, i.e. who
first created the package and then poke those people automatically to
update the package once a release cycle.
devel project maintainers continue to be the gate keepers and do reviews
of spec files etc. when a new package gets submitted to the devel
project. But the original packager (unless the package is handed to
someone else) continues to bear the responsibility of keeping the
package up to date. The "forget" part is solved by automatic e-mail
messages. If the maintainer commits a new version the e-mails stop until
the next release cycle of oS begins and a packager can stop the
notification e-mail by submitting a web form or via osc command that a
given package has no new version available for the given oS release.
I think we have plenty of opportunity here to avoid the "drop and
forget" style of contribution.
Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
Software Engineer Consultant LINUX
Making IT Work As One
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+help(a)opensuse.org