On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:07:40AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > CC:ing -project because this is a project wide call for discussion. (-project is for discussion about the project, not for "project wide" stuff; dunno if this fits that) > What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice > for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field > without any luck: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00966.html > There have been no responses which would indicate what we should do. Actually, there've been lots, some of them are just contradictory. > There are clearly some Maintainers in Debian, who want their name in the > maintainer field and some who don't want that. FWIW, I haven't seen the ones who do want their name in the maintainer field. > This is a call for discussion: What does debian actually want? Do we > really need to include a white or black list (and what exactly?) Personally, I'd suggest: * for unmodified debs (including ones that have been rebuilt, possibly with different versions of libraries), keep the Maintainer: field the same * for debs in main that are modified, set the maintainer: field to the appropriate point of contact, and add a note to the copyright file as to the source you pulled from * for debs in universe that are modified, set the maintainer: field to the MOTU list or similar point of contact, and add a note to the copyright file * for maintainers who want to keep their name in the maintainer field, even when modified by Ubuntu, invite them to join Ubuntu in the usual manner * for changes that are likely to be useful in Debian or generally, submit the change upstream, by filing a bug with a minimal patch included to bugs.debian.org, or by the appropriate mechanism further upstream. That seems like it makes things fairly simple for you guys (no changes in the normal case, tweaking debian/control and debian/copyright when changes are needed), provides appropriate credit to debian maintainers, and provides a fairly simple and effective way of getting changes incorporated back in. > I'd prefer a solution which can be implemented in a reasonable time > frame, and which ends this annoyingly heated discussion once and for > all. It's rare that heated discussions are ever done with "once and for all" IME. Though the emacs/vi wars are cooler now than they were a decade ago. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature