[maemo-developers] RFC: Proposal to solve multiple repository, poor QA situation

[From: Andrew Flegg]

On Jan 14, 2008 9:53 PM, Graham Cobb <g+770 at cobb.uk.net> wrote:
>
> I think Andrew's proposal is excellent.  Nokia have made it clear that they
> look to the "community" to solve the problems of managing package
> availability (Nokia do provide resources to help, like the extras and
> extras-devel repos).  Andrew's suggestion of a community of volunteers who
> help developers get their packages in extras whilst not doing away with the
> current scheme of allowing developers to request direct access is inspired --
> it allows flexibility and avoids the volunteers being overloaded with very
> large package sets, often with complex dependencies for big applications
> (Canola, Gaim, GPE, etc.).

Glad you like it. I haven't yet thought how, if at all, Mikhail's
extras' promotion interface affects - or contributes - to this
proposal. Comments on that welcome.

> Another part of the pragmatic approach is that, at least initially,
> submissions will have to be binary packages.  I believe that source should be
> required to be submitted as well even though there is no way at the moment to
> check that the supplied source really generates the supplied binaries.  That
> means that one day an autobuilder can be added.

A good idea. Ensuring *some* source is uploaded is a wonderful way of
leaving the door open for an autobuilder. The only problem I can
foresee are closed source applications like Canola, Quiver or even
VideoCenter or GarnetVM. Should they be outside of the scope of this,
or should the aim be to get as much high-quality (FSVO "quality")
software in extras for the benefit of all users?

> One key to getting this successfully off the ground is that I think the focus
> should be on helping people do whatever is needed to release their package --
> after all, we want to get away from multiple repositories for released
> software, not put roadblocks in people's way.  While it would be nice to have
> a Maemo policy manual and a "mintian" tool to check it, we can't get there
> from here -- there is just much too much work to do to get to that stage.

Agreed 100%.

> I am even fairly ambivalent to application quality.  I certainly think the
> volunteer should check that the supplied packages install.  They should check
> some minimal things (like not adding new application categories!).  They
> should probably even try to satisfy themselves that the application runs (can
> be started) and doesn't appear to do any damage (crashing the UI, for
> example).  But I don't think it is reasonable to ask them to check the
> application "works".  That is what bug reporting systems are for.

Yes, I envisage basic checks: does it install? does it start? does it
`rm -rf /' when installed?

> That brings me to a major missing piece...  If all these applications are
> going to go into extras, there needs to be some place to report bugs.  I can
> think of two good solutions for bug reporting:
>
[1: extras bug tracker]
>
> 2) A new field is put in the debian control file to contain the URL of the bug
> reporting system for that package.  The AppMgr could have an option/button to
> visit the bug reporting URL for any package.

I can certainly see the appeal here, and hopefully Nokia can too:
third-party software with problems can have the users going directly
to the application maintainers rather than possibly contacting Nokia
support. "Report a problem" buttons alongside "Installed software"
entries in the App Mgr resonates very strongly with me.

Thanks for the input, and expressing some of my own thoughts much more
eloquently than I did ;-)

There seems to be a broad agreement from the /community/ that
*something* is required here, and that this might be a step in the
right direction. I think the karma - and now the bug tracker - aspects
could be very important, both for encouraging volunteer gatekeepers
and allowing user to feedback on software. Both of these, though,
would require input from Marius and other members of the Maemo team on
whether they're broadly feasible. I'd also be very interested to here
what Mikhail thinks in light of his integrated promotion interface.
(So apologies to them for the extra CCs)

Cheers,

Andrew

-- 
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew at bleb.org  |  http://www.bleb.org/