From 1be510f9529cb082f802408b472a77d074b394c0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicolas Vigier Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:46:12 +0000 Subject: Add zarb MLs html archives --- zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20101218/001775.html | 98 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 98 insertions(+) create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20101218/001775.html (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20101218/001775.html') diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20101218/001775.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20101218/001775.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..af7cc0331 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20101218/001775.html @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ + + + + [Mageia-dev] maintainers database + + + + + + + + + +

[Mageia-dev] maintainers database

+ andre999 + andr55 at laposte.net +
+ Sat Dec 18 01:21:30 CET 2010 +

+
+ +
Romain d'Alverny a écrit :
+>
+> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 23:41, Maarten Vanraes
+> <maarten.vanraes at gmail.com>  wrote:
+>> imo, it could be used into mageia-app-db, allthough the purposes are a bit
+>> different.
+>
+> So it should be a separate component.
+>
+>> however, if we plan on using ldap to store the maintainership (it would be
+>> more like groups for each package and people being member of it...), then
+>> perhaps it should be in catdap.
+>
+> I'm not sure this should be put into the LDAP, but I may be wrong. The
+> data model is likely to change often enough (even if not a lot) and
+> queries are likely to be frequent enought, to justify a separate,
+> simple db/app for that. But here again, I may not have all the infos.
+>
+>> however, we will have need of this soon; and it should also take into account
+>> co-maintainers...
+>
+> That's the group thing, yes (be it explicit or implicit).
+>
+> Romain
+
+Why not have a field for primary/secondary maintainer ?
+By default, the first maintainer would be primary, subsequent 
+maintainers secondary.
+This field being changable as desired.
+That way, there is total flexability to have whatever mix of 
+primary/secondary maintainers the group of packagers for a particular 
+package wishes.
+
+I suspect that it would be better to have a separate database for this 
+than mageia-app-db, to avoid contamination of errors, etc.
+By keeping it separate, the packagers would have total control to 
+maintain the list according to what is actually packaged by Mageia.
+Note that mageia-app-db will probably be listing 3rd party packages, not 
+carried by mageia.
+In any case, it would be better to have a separate table for packager info.
+
+my 2 cents :)
+
+André
+
+ + + +
+

+ +
+More information about the Mageia-dev +mailing list
+ -- cgit v1.2.1