[Pkg-zope-developers] Re: about the pkg-zope repositories

Wed Aug 17 09:14:06 UTC 2005

also sprach Fabio Tranchitella <kobold at debian.org> [2005.08.16.1013 +0200]:
> I lack of experience, sorry. Wouldn't this cause a NMU, since that
> member of pkg-zope may not be present as uploader? What is the right way
> to handle this?

If you are a pkg-zope member and you plan to work on this package,
add yourself as Uploader with the upload. Otherwise it *should* be
an NMU, right?

(Jonas also said this in another post.)

also sprach Andreas Tille <tillea at rki.de> [2005.08.16.1039 +0200]:
> I have to admit that I personally do not any testing in experimental.  This
> is way below my visible horizont in day-to-day work.  So you might facing
> the situation that you are the only tester of the experimental packages.

I will test too. :)

> >I haven't had enough time to deeply check them, and as you already know
> >debian zope users usually run unstable machines because stable zope
> >versions are terribly outdated.
> If somebody is using unstable he is using this on his own risk.  I'm using
> stable on my production servers (even one runs under Woody with Zope 2.5.1).

I run unstable on production servers.
Makes for quick bug fix turnaround times. :)

also sprach Fabio Tranchitella <kobold at debian.org> [2005.08.16.1106 +0200]:
> Again, I think I'm lacking of experience. Should I do something to
> ask for testing of those packages? I'm just asking myself if
> unstable would have been a better place for wide testing, and your
> sentece give me no sense for experimental repository. :)

I think people here will test if they can. Once the transition is
complete in experimental, we can just upload to unstable and do the
testing there. It's just not so cool if unstable's Zope is unusable
during the transition.

> Maybe we should provide *official* backports for stable? 
> Any opinion about this?

Yes, but only after the transition. I absolutely agree though. But
*official* is pkg-zope-official, not Debian official.

> Might the use of the pkg-zope-devel address in che changelog (with the
> use of "-k" switch for dpkg-buildpackage to specify the gpg key to use
> to sign the packages) be a good idea?

No. It won't work as it's used for the changes file.

also sprach Andreas Tille <tillea at rki.de> [2005.08.16.1123 +0200]:
> You will not start a new project on a production machine, right?

I do all the time. If a company asks me to develop a new site for
them, I always try to use the latest Plone or else will face upgrade
problems too soon.

> There should be an upgrade path from Plone 2.0.5 to Plone 2.1, right?

Ouch. There *should*. Don't know if it will work.

> (that's why the name).  Experimental is for things that are *very likely to
> break everything*.

I disagree. It's a scratch area. unstable is a distribution on its
own. You should always try to keep things in unstable installable.
If things are broken in experimental, that's okay. If they stay
broken in unstable, that's not.

also sprach Matthias Klose <doko at cs.tu-berlin.de> [2005.08.16.1202 +0200]:
> in general, we cannot offer more than upstream offers. If upstream
> doesn't offer an upgrade path, what will you do?

Then we won't.

also sprach Federico Sevilla III <jijo at free.net.ph> [2005.08.16.1130 +0200]:
> This would be great. Something like volatile.debian.net, but only for
> Zope and Zope-related packages (eg: Zope products).

I want pkg-zope to have its own APT repository in the long run.

also sprach Jonas Meurer <jonas at freesources.org> [2005.08.16.1348 +0200]:
> i guess that the way andreas did it is correct. use this group as
> maintainer, and add your own name/email in the uploaders field. if some
> member of the group want's to upload, he/she may do an NMU, or add
> his/her name/email to the uploaders field.

See above.

> if your name is in the uploaders field, you're something like a
> co-maintainer, aren't you?

Yes.

> of course you can also add several names/emails to the uploaders field
> at once (initial maintainer to group transition) and this way determine
> a group of people who are responsible for the package.

Yes, and it should be the same group as listed on the pkg-zope
wiki's Packages page.

also sprach Andreas Tille <tillea at rki.de> [2005.08.16.1400 +0200]:
> BTW, I think the extra advantage is that the package shows up on the
> 
>     http://qa.debian.org/developer.php
> 
> page of each single developer.  (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

You are right. q.d.o shows co-maintained packages if you don't tell
it not to.

also sprach Derrick Hudson <dman at dman13.dyndns.org> [2005.08.16.1544 +0200]:
> As long as all of the source code for the upload is in the shared
> repository, I don't think an upload should be considered "NMU" because
> the "M" doesn't need to obtain and integrate the changes because they
> are already in the repository.  This is one significant advantage I
> can see with using a repository to manage the package as opposed to a
> single person with just their own hard drive.

This is how it should work on a per-package basis, but not across
the entire pkg-zope archive. For instance, I don't want to be
a co-maintainer of CPS, so I should not be in the list of uploaders.
However, if I fix some bug in CPS and need to upload, it will be
a NMU, or rather a "pkg-zope developer but not responsible for the
package upload". Those two are more or less the same.

also sprach Jonas Meurer <jonas at freesources.org> [2005.08.16.1641 +0200]:
> so as far as i understand (and have seen at other team uploads) the
> changelog address should be the one of the developer who actually signed
> and uploaded the package.
> if his/her address is also in the Uploaders field, it's a normal team
> upload, no NMU. the Maintainer field should be to the team's mailinglist
> adress.
> i hope that i got everything right.

100%

-- 
 .''`.     martin f. krafft <madduck at debian.org>
: :'  :    proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info
`. `'`
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system

Invalid/expired PGP (sub)keys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!

"whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does
 not become a monster. and when you look into an abyss, the abyss also
 looks into you."
                                                 - friedrich nietzsche
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-zope-developers/attachments/20050817/c76191b3/attachment.pgp