DM and pkg-perl
jeremiah.foster at ericsson.com
Thu Nov 22 10:34:34 UTC 2007
> > Jeremiah Foster, Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 09:43:10AM +0100
> > Bad because the problem the DM was meant to solve is still present.
> > The goal is (presumably) to give rights to someone to independently
> > upload packages to debian.
> Not any random package. DM process is meant to give upload rights to a
> *selected* set of packages to the DM. At least I understand
> it that way.
> Advocates more-or-less guarantee for the candidate, but a DD
> maintainer has to give the final permission for each package.
Ah, then I misunderstood.
> > If they get that right, they should be considered able to package
> > software according to debian's standards
> I disagree again. A current package maintainer is required to
> affirm that this DM is capable of handling *this* package.
> Not "capable of doing debian packages (i.e. any debian package)".
This seems like a logical approach.
> The problems I see with the "clean Uploaders" approach are
> more of a social mater. "Oh, they don't trust me, stupid DDs,
> who do they think they are" anyone? :)
> New debian/control field would not avoid this :/
Yes, that is always a problem. But overcoming this social issue is part
of the process of becoming a better package maintainer. To me, if
someone can't get over the fact that trust inside debian is earned, not
merely granted upon asking, then maybe the debian project is not what
they want to be working on. And DDs should (hopefully) know more about
packaging than a DM or NM or a random person - even if that random
person knows a lot about C, perl, a specific application, etc.
Upon reflection I think the "clean Uploaders" method will work well.
More information about the pkg-perl-maintainers