Re: Sponsorship: news and questions about the maintainer field
- To: Raphael Hertzog <rhertzog@hrnet.fr>
- Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, new-maintainer@debian.org, Stéphane Bortzmeyer <bortz@pasteur.fr>, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <gaia@iki.fi>, "Justin N . Penney" <spankenstein@mindless.com>, Decklin Foster <decklin@home.com>, Aldenor Falcao <aald@etfal.g12.br>, Ben Hendrickson <bhendrickson@usa.net>, Alexander Koch <efraim@argh.org>
- Subject: Re: Sponsorship: news and questions about the maintainer field
- From: Josip Rodin <joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:06:52 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 19990727140652.A9870@cibalia.gkvk.hr>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 19990727133159.A27482@p200.hrnet.fr>; from Raphael Hertzog on Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 01:31:59PM +0200
- References: <[🔎] 19990727133159.A27482@p200.hrnet.fr>
[is all this crosspost neccessary?]
On Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 01:31:59PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> But I wonder what I can put in the Maintainer field ... would it be a
> problem to leave the name of the real maintainer that is not yet a Debian
> developer ? I don't like it too much ... that's why I suggested to use
> Debian QA Group <debian-qa@lists.debian.org>. That does make sense for
> oprhaned packages that are adopted but does not make any sense for new
> packages ... any idea ?
AFAIK dpkg-buildpackage and dinstall don't look at the Maintainer: field,
they authenticate just the one who uploads (the changelog entry). BTS does
look at that entry, but that is fine with us (the bug reports should go
to the prospective maintainer, not the one who uploaded).
But, the Maintainers file is problematic. Can it contain entries that
aren't in the keyring?
--
enJoy -*/\*- don't even try to pronounce my first name
Reply to: