Hi, I just recently went through the process to make 'db-sig' a pkgdb group (instead of just 'a group').
My goal is to explore a way to centrally manage access to the packages maintained by various members of the Red Hat Databases team. As the employees come and go through the years, or just shift to different packages or projects, it's painful to manage the access per package. Especially when I don't have access to most of them. So I created a group that mirrors exactly the our members, with an idea that each package we maintain will have human Main Admin as the main point of contact (pkdb groups can't be Main Admins anyway), an admin of 'db-sig', and then optionally anyone else, either members of the 'db-sig' who want to explicitly get notifications from the package, or any other contributors interested in co-maintaining these packages. (transition slowly in progress) I intentionally also put people there who are not packagers (yet), and I explicitly verified that they won't somehow get 'packager' access to those packages just because they are members of a pkgdb group, until they get the 'packager' status themselves. So in my case, I am doing this consciously. On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 4:53 AM Maxwell G <[email protected]> wrote: > I thought the policy was that non-packagers were not supposed to be added to > groups that are synced to > distgit and that FAS blocked that from accidentally happening I'm not aware of any such policy. Could you provide a link to it, if it really exists? Also do we (still) need any such policy? > My main impetus for this is to avoid to spamming people > with orphaned packages process emails (all members of SIGs that > co-maintain orphan affected packages are BCCed) who aren't involved in > Fedora anymore. Is it intentional to have all of the members of the SIGs BCCed, instead of just using the SIG mailing list (which is a requirement for a pkgdb group), which goes to all of the members anyway? (and it's potentially more clear with because of which affiliation they got that e-mail) Michal -- Michal Schorm Software Engineer Databases Team Red Hat -- On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 4:53 AM Maxwell G <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > It turns out there are several members of packaging SIGs (FAS groups > that are synced to distgit) that are not members of the packager group > [1]. Is there something to be done here? I thought the policy was that > non-packagers were not supposed to be added to groups that are synced to > distgit and that FAS blocked that from accidentally happening, but I'm > not sure what happens when people are removed from the packager group > for inactivity. My main impetus for this is to avoid to spamming people > with orphaned packages process emails (all members of SIGs that > co-maintain orphan affected packages are BCCed) who aren't involved in > Fedora anymore. > > > [1]: See https://fedorapeople.org/~gotmax23/rogue.json which was > generated with `goorphans distgit rogue` from > https://go.gtmx.me/goorphans. The "total" key in the data is the union > of all groups. > > Best, > Maxwell > -- > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] > Do not reply to spam, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
