"JW" == Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
JW> Since binary-level compatibility is not a goal of Ubuntu
JW> (nor IMO should it be; down that path lies madness), they
JW> modify every package in a very important sense.
Even if binary compatibility were a goal, that doesn't mean that
the Maintainer field of rebuilt packages shouldn't be updated to
reflect the actual builder of the package.
We use CentOS at work. CentOS is a binary-compatible rebuild of
Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Every single package in CentOS is
rebuilt by the CentOS team. Every package has its Vendor and
Packager field modified. Ubuntu should be doing the same thing.
[For the poll aspect of this discussion, I agree with everything
that Thomas Bushnell has said on this topic.]
Claire
--
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Man cannot be civilised, or be kept civilised by what he does in his
spare time; only by what he does as his work.
W.R. Lethaby
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
C.M. Connelly cmc@debian.org
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Attachment:
pgproNkmTmsVP.pgp
Description: PGP signature