"What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Mackenzie Morgan]

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com> wrote:
> On Monday, July 25, 2011 12:42:49 PM Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
> ...
>> I agree that it is confusing, but I don't think it has to be. The
>> ArchiveReorganisation[1] wiki page hasn't been edited in the last 2
>> years and it hasn't been revisited at UDS. The process is effectively
>> stalled for now. The Components[2] sub-page says that there would no
>> longer be a separate main and universe and that MOTU (I guess it will
>> need a new name since it would technically be something different) would
>> take care of unseeded packages.
> ...
>
> At UDS for Karmic (Barcelona) we had a session that defined the current state
> of things.  We discussed renaming MOTU and decided against it.  IMO this sort
> of "Oh, it's different now ..." "MOTU will need to be renamed ..." discussion
> is counter productive and adds to the confusion.

"Masters of the Unseeded" was the new backronym I heard.

> As far as I'm aware, no restrictive package sets have been implemented yet
> that would prevent MOTU from uploading non-Main packages, so while there is a
> lot of theory, nothing has actually changed for MOTU.  What has changed is
> packagesets (and PPU) that give people most limited access to upload that are
> not MOTU.

There was a discussion about it on IRC last week starting at
http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/07/18/%23ubuntu-devel.html#t20:43

In particular, this is the part about whether MOTU can or can't touch
packages in package sets...

<maco>	so should we make it a habit of making teams to match when we
make new packagesets?
<persia>	Considering that AA always took care of components, we
probably ought adjust packageset change permissions to be union of DMB
and AA or similar.
<cjwatson>	yes.  but that is Hard.
<cjwatson>	(AIUI.)	
<persia>	Unless we expect the DMB to take over regular migration of
stuff for transitions, etc.
<cjwatson>	maco: it's probably the most practical approach	
<persia>	cjwatson: It's hard to have a union of teams.  It's not hard
to have a team with membership limited to AA+DMB that owns the
packageset.  That said, it needs discussion and consensus before being
done.
<maco>	cjwatson: so then we just ask the TB "can you make packageset
$name with packages x,y,z and permissions to $team" and then never
have to bug you about that packageset again (for the most part...until
it needs a new package)
<persia>	When we approve a PPU, does this necessitate the creation of
a packageset?
<maco>	persia: we often vote to create a packageset if the set being
requested seems reusable or is copied off someone else and is
therefore obviously being reused
<persia>	maco: Right, when there is a team.  My concern is that we
grant packageset teams exclusive authority over packages unique to
their packagesets (which is why packageset teams are required to have
core-dev as a member).
<maco>	persia: i did not know of this requirement	
<micahg>	persia: in terms of Archive Reorg, I don't think PPU should
have a packageset
<persia>	This is incompatible with our statement that we *do not*
grant exclusive authority over packages for PPUs, once MOTU is
implemented as the inverse of all packagesets.
<geser>	maco: if the package set is DMB-owned (some are like mozilla,
zope and some others) the DMB can add and remove packages from it once
the TB created the package set
<persia>	maco: Failure to abide by the requirement today has a low
penalty, as Soyuz still supports component-based permissions.



-- 
Mackenzie Morgan