Re: We still need sponsors!
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 01:00:28PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Tille, Andreas wrote:
>
> >...
> > OK. If I understand this right that would mean that the control file
> > would state
> >
> > Maintainer: Future Maintainer <not.yet@debian.org>
>
> no, the control field states:
> Maintainer: My Name <foo@bar.net>
>
> Where "My Name <foo@bar.net>" is a working email address of the maintainer
> of the package. When he gets his account he can change the maintainer
> field to his @debian.org address in the next upload - or he could leave
> the other email address (if you look at my packages you'll find that I
> never use my @debian.org address).
>
> > and my own address will be in the changelog (like in an NMU). Where
> > is the place to make clear that:
> > "The package is called a sponsored package ..."
> > Are there any fields/conventions?
>
> The way I prefer is:
>
> The maintainer makes the package as if he was an official developer.
> The sponsor rebuilds the package, checks it, and if it's OK he signs it
> with his key (using "debsign -m") and uploads it.
>
> Note that the name of the sponsor doesn't appear anywhere except in the
> gpg signature of the .changes and the .dsc files and there's nothing that
> makes the upload look like a NMU.
>
> If you want to make it clear that the upload is sponsored an entry in the
> changelog should be the right solution. Before I became a maintainer I
> added to the changelog entry of every package that was sponsored for me a
> line
>
> * Upload sponsored by Tony Mancill <tmancill@debian.org>.
>
>
Sounds good. Maybe we should provide a description of this technique
somewhere within webml or ddp.
WWW/doc folks: any hint about sponsorship uploading practices?
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
Reply to: