Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
Christian Schwarz writes ("first proposal for a new maintainer policy"):
> Duties of a maintainer
> ----------------------
>
> Being maintainer of a package means the following: (note, that in
> some cases a maintainer can not fulfill all these requirements--see
> notes below)
I think you should specify what having a duty means. In particular, I
think you should state that:
This list of duties and privileges describes the tasks that need to
be done for proper maintenance of a Debian package, and the
assistance that others in the Project should provide to people doing
these tasks.
A developer who is for any reason unable perform some or all their
duties should say so; the Project will then try to find someone else
to do the relevant tasks. Such a developer should not be flamed,
insulted or personally criticised for this.
...
> Privileges of a maintainer
> --------------------------
>
> A package maintainer has the following rights:
>
> - make any technical or nontechnical decisions with regard to the
> package provided that the decisions don't conflict with policy
> requirements
This directly contradicts the proposed constitution. Now, obviously,
the policy can say that `foo must be done' and since the policy has no
authority according to the constitution (the fundamental document
which grants authority) to override maintainers' decisions we can
ignore that sentence.
However, I think it would be better if we didn't make false things
policy !
...
> In most cases, a package has only one maintainer at a time. This
> avoids confusion about who is responsible for a package (i.e., who
> has to do the above duties) and who can make final decisions on a
> package (i.e., who is granted the rights listed above). This
> developer will be called the `Maintainer of the package' and his/her
> name is listed in the "Maintainer:" control field (see below for
> details).
>
> It's also possible for a package to have several maintainers at a
> time, who all share the duties and privileges listed above. One of
> these developers has to be nominated as `master maintainer,' who has
> the final word in case of conflict situations (e.g., if the different
> maintainers disagree on a decision). The names of all these
> developers are listed in the "Maintainer:" control field, together
> with a common email address (see below).
I disagree with the `master maintainer' thing. In case of conflict
which cannot be resolved internally the Technical Committee should
decide, either before or after both sides have offered a package for
inclusion.
I also disagree with the requirements for the formatting of the
Maintainer field.
I agree with whoever was that said that we should mandate _what_ gets
done, not _how_. The management of package maintainers' internal
affairs is not the business of policy.
...
> The Maintainer control field
> ----------------------------
>
> Each Debian source and binary package must have a `Maintainer'
> control field, which lists the current maintainer(s) of a
> package. The source package and all derived binary packages must have
> identical Maintainer fields.
>
> The Maintainer control field must have the following form (variable
> values are surrounded by "--")
>
> Maintainer: --name-of-maintainer(s)-- <--email-address-->
The name part should be the name of the maintainer if it is an
individual, or otherwise a descriptive string.
Incorporate the relevant part of the dpkg manual (which specifies the
format exactly) by reference or inclusion.
Use a sensible syntax notation, for example
The Maintainer control field must have the following form
(metasyntactic variables start with $)
Maintainer: $name <$email_address>
> In addition, this field must represent a valid email address (as
> defined by RFC ????).
No, this is not the case. See the dpkg documentation.
> Though a maintainer may choose to use different email addresses on
> his/her packages, the maintainer's name must always be written in
> exactly the same way on all his/her packages to allow scripts to
> easily detect all packages maintained by one developer.
Make it clear that this only applies to packages maintained by a
single individual.
> If a package has multiple maintainers at a time, the names of all
> maintainers will be listed in the Maintainer control field, separated
> by "and". In addition, an email alias which refers to all developers
> has to be listed. The `master maintainer' of a package is listed
> first.
Cut this paragraph.
...
> Changes WRT current policy:
>
> - removed suggestion that the email addresses should be unique within the
> different packages of a maintainer
> - added requirement, that the name listed in the Maintainer field is
> the same on all packages of that maintainer
> - packages are allowed to have several maintainers at once
The Debian QA group still violates this policy, as does owner@bugs,
new-maintainer, dpkg, &c &c &c.
Please try harder to document existing practice and consensus rather
than forcing your own ideas of management on everyone !
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: