Re: Ubuntu and its "appropriation" of Debian maintainers
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Every Debian derivative I have seen does this the same way. There is some
> > inaccuracy in either case, but I think this is the lesser of the evils:
> > - Changing the maintainer field
> > - "<foo> is taking credit for my work!"
> > - Requires modification of every source package, even if it is otherwise
> > identical
> > - Not changing the maintainer field
> > - "<foo> is blaming me for someone else's bugs!"
> > - Users sometimes contact the wrong party (though reportbug does the right
> > thing)
> Maybe it's worth modifying the debian/control file a bit when you
> are altering the package such as
> Maintainer: becomes Debian-Maintainer
> and a new
> line with the "new" maintainer of this package.
> That would both give credit to the upstream Debian maintainer and
> show that the current maintainer in this distribution is somebody
> else who should be bothered in case of problems.
Another option would be to leave the source package maintainer the same (to
retain proper credit, etc.), but override the binary package maintainer
during the build (to reflect that it is a different build, and also display
a more appropriate name in "apt-cache show" etc.).
What do you think about this approach?