<quote who="Matt Zimmerman" date="2005-05-02 15:06:10 -0700"> > 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? FWIW, I think this would be an ideal solution. I think it's worth pointing out that up until this thread, the only complaints we've gotten in terms of attribution and Debian packages are about the *lack* of attribution from patches pulled from Debian. This seems to be a little bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. :) Hopefully we've figured this one out. And while it is nice to know that this bothers other DDs, this probably could have been handled by mailing the Ubuntu or Launchpad developers. The information on Launchpad was, after all, not going to be giving everyone who saw it the right information and it was probably best classified as a bug in a very young piece of software. Like Matt, I'm happy to act as a point of contact for this sort of thing in the future. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill mako@debian.org http://mako.yukidoke.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature