launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Curtis Hovey <curtis.hovey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:08 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 11:49:05AM -0400, Curtis Hovey wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 17:20 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
...
> > > 2. Should list include any registered distro or only ones with
> > > packages
> > >    hosted by launchpad?
> > 
> > What do we mean by hosted? Build packages, distribution.full_featured
> > (Ubuntu); or uses Launchpad to track bugs (Ubuntu, Baltix, Guadalinex)?
> > I think using Launchpad bugs is the right criteria since this issue is
> > about bug tracking.
> > 
> > Honestly, the bugs in other distros that do not use Launchpad (Fedora
> > and Gentoo for example) is a massive distraction. Their source package
> > names are != to debian and Ubuntu source package names. Users link to
> > packages to discover that while the name is the same, it is a different
> > upstream or has different content in Debian. Gentoo source package names
> > can violate Launchpad's name rules. We cannot do this well, we should
> > not do this unless we intend to support them well. The Ubuntu community
> > is the only community that really needs this.
> 
> Well, one of the benefits I could see from a Ubuntu perspective is that
> it would give developers and triagers an easier way to get insights into
> what's going on in other distros.  E.g. for patch nabbing.

There are 153 Fedora bugs, 45 gentoo bugs, 43 OpenSUSE bugs, and 12 SUSE
bugs that URL hackers can see. Since these distros do not use Launchpad
to track bugs, and the distros cannot have an alternate bug tracker,
there is no incentive for these communities to use Launchpad.

> However, that assumes this info is easily accessible in launchpad.  If
> not, as it sounds like may be the case, then this concept is probably
> out of scope for covering in this particular bug.

There are 200 non-Ubuntu package links created by naive users. about 150
of these links are Debian. so about 50 exist to Fedora and Gentoo, but
we do not know how to manage their package names:

        ack-grep == ack == sys-apps/ack
        Ubuntu != Fedora != gentoo
        
        /me discovered this example over the weekend researching the
        licence and linking Launchpad's project to the package.

...

> > Project proposal:
> >         I do not have one. This is hard because there are many sets of
> >         information to be shown. We also need to consider that much of
> >         this information is not interesting to projects. Making this
> >         interesting is the first priority, knowing how to present it is
> >         the second priority.
> >
> >       * Most project should not have a portlet to an non-existent
> >         upstream. Launchpad allow users to say the project is not
>           ^ DYM 'distro'?

 Oops. I do.

> >         packaged in the project index page. The user will be asked to
> >         re-confirm this a year later.
> 
> Could you clarify the last sentence - does this mean that users are
> already emailed to re-confirm the project is not packaged yearly?  Or
> that they *should* be emailed yearly?

No email is needed. Most project pages have a portlet on that asking the
user to choose an Ubuntu package or clearly state there is None. If the
project links to a package, the portlet switches to show the latest
packages. If the user says it is not packaged, the portlet asking the
question is hidden for one year. Anyone can answer the question since
anyone is permitted to create a link between a project and a package.

This is a summary of the scope of the issue:
18,942 registered projects
 2,649 registered projects are linked to source packages
 1,215 registered projects that stated they have no packaging.
------
15,078 registered projects have not answered the last two months

...

-- 
__Curtis C. Hovey_________
http://launchpad.net/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part