Hi! On Sun, 2014-01-26 at 13:16:23 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Package: qa.debian.org > Severity: normal
> It is confusing that pages like > http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=packa...@qa.debian.org > list whoever maintained packages also under whoever is listed in > the maintainer field in stable - that person might have given up > maintainership of the package many years ago (or here in the case > of packa...@qa.debian.org, it is no longer of any interest for QA > since it does now have a maintainer). > > As an example, when looking for where a QA upload might make sense > for reducing differences with Ubuntu, I am not interested in seeing > the wmii package listed - that package is no longer maintained by QA. > > I'd expect the maintainer in unstable to be the one and only being > responsible for all versions of the package. > > When there are different maintainers in unstable and experimental, > I see the point of listing a package under both since it is not > trivial to see which maintainer information is more recent, and that > would usually anyway be resolved soon with a new upload. Indeed, I've been hit by this and it's pretty annoying, for almost half the packages from my main section, I'm not (co-)maintainer any longer: <http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=guillem> which just clutters the view, and makes it quite distracting. > Additional information from the discussion on #debian-qa : > > 12:33 < noshadow> looks like developer.php gets the information from database > files, so it looks more like a show or not show and no easy > graying out those where one is only maintainer in stable. > 12:46 < noshadow> reading the source it looks like something in oldstable > should not show up. And if the examples I tried were > correct > it indeed does not show up. So from the code it looks like > it > was an explicit decision to have stable packages show up > there (but oldstable not). > 12:49 < noshadow> stable stable-proposed-updates testing > testing-proposed-updates experimental and unstable are > taken > for maintainer information while > oldstable{,/updates,-proposed-update} stable-updates > stable/updates testing/updates are not. > 12:51 < noshadow> svn.debian.org/svn/qa/trunk date/ddpo/extract_archive.pl > line 139 the ', 1' part > 12:52 < bunk> noshadow: IMHO unstable (and perhaps experimental) are the only > suites that make sense for checking maintainer information > 12:54 < noshadow> bunk: I guess the interesting part in suggesting the change > is finding out what else used that maintainer information > from archive.db This regression seems to be due to #566637, commit r2626. I've taken a quick look and archive.db seems to only be used by: data/dm-permissions/dm-permissions.pl Does not really use the db, the accesses are commented out. wml/popcon.wml Only seems to access the list of binary packages key “bin:$package”. data/popcon/extract_popcon-tobdb.py Does not seem to care about name: nor com: keys (?). wml/developer.wml cgi-bin/bts-graphs It seems these two are the only ones affected, and will have the same problem, by showing information for packages not (co-)maintained by the email address any longer. The other file generated from data/ddpo/extract_archive.pl, is maintainers.txt which is only being used by wml/developer.wml. Thanks, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140630144448.ga14...@gaara.hadrons.org
