Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list
Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
>> Maybe that would be best. The concern that I had is that it wouldn't be
>> clear that a package just being maintained upstream isn't sufficient;
>> someone needs to be responsible for the package as it exists in Debian.
> Part of my difficulty here is the lack of a succint term to refer to
> “package for which Debian policy is intended to be normative”.
> You've fallen into the same trap I did earlier: you referred to “the
> package as it exists in Debian”, whereas as Charles pointed out, Debian
> policy is meant to apply also to packages that *don't* exist in Debian.
Yeah, there's that too. We're probably best off just saying that every
package needs a maintainer. Hopefully it's clear enough since we're
saying that the package needs one, not just the software.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: