RFC: auto-generated packageset for Canonical OEM enablement metapackages
robie.basak at ubuntu.com
Mon Feb 22 15:02:04 UTC 2021
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this.
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 04:07:12PM +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
> All sounds great. Together with FourDollars I've written a first version
> of the script, which is here:
> As it's a new repository I don't have a good way to do this via a merge
> request (Launchpad can't create genuinely empty repositories AFAIK). So
> feel free to let me know what you think here and when everyone's happy
> you can push it to somewhere under ~developer-membership-board.
I reviewed the script, and it looks good. So I've pushed your git
and presumably we can proceed from there now, with MPs as needed, etc.
> The only thing I haven't done from the list above here is mailing
> devel-permissions. I was thinking that I'd set cron up to do this via
> `MAILTO`, if that's acceptable.
This sounds fine to me.
> Would someone be able to create a PPA under
> ~canonical-oem-metapackage-uploaders, please? I was thinking it would be
> called "oem-metapackage-staging". Then I can update the script to look
> at the final location.
> You can run it with `--debug --dry-run` to get a sense of what it's
> going to do. And also feel free to run without `--dry-run` too, to see
> if that works since I'm obviously unable to test that part. It should
> be harmless to commit changes to this packageset since it currently has
> no uploaders beyond ~ubuntu-core-dev.
This worked well, and I ran it without --dry-run so the packageset is
updated now. I then changed the ownership over to ~ubuntu-archive for
the three created packagesets.
I think that you can set up the cron job (and mail) for ~ubuntu-archive
now, and then we'll be done? I suggest pinning the commit to pull the
script from, to prevent ~developer-membership-board from running
arbitrary code as ~ubuntu-archive. But that's up to ~ubuntu-archive :)
> Finally, on IRC Robie asked for a bit of documentation about the archive
> team's role, to sit alongside the text on the DMB's knowledge base. I
> wrote something short:
> and also some text in the header of the script itself.
> Do also let me know if you'd like any clarifications there.
Looks good - thanks! With the rest of the pieces at the DMB end in place
now, is that enough to resolve the incomplete bits?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Devel-permissions