[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

* Matt Zimmerman (mdz@ubuntu.com) wrote:
> >  * for unmodified debs (including ones that have been rebuilt, possibly
> >    with different versions of libraries), keep the Maintainer: field the
> >    same
> Joey Hess and others in this thread have said that this is not acceptable to
> them.  What I need from Debian is either a clear consensus resulting from
> discussion among developers, or an official decision from a position of
> authority.  Otherwise, we'd just be chasing our tail trying to please
> individuals with conflicting opinions.

Maybe I missed something, but has someone actually said they'd be
unhappy if the Maintainer: field was an appropriate Ubuntu person?

Some might be alright with leaving Maintainer alone if the package
hasn't been changed, some might be alright with leaving it the same even
if the package has been changed and some might always want it changed,
I don't expect you'll get a concensus on that.  I'd be suprised if
someone was actually unhappy with the Maintainer field changing though.
Of course, don't submit a patch back to Debian which includes changing
the Maintainer field.

> >  * 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
> I don't see how this would help.  If we were to institute a policy (or more
> likely, an automated process) to change the maintainer field, inviting the
> maintainer to become an Ubuntu developer wouldn't have any obvious effect on
> the process.  What did you have in mind here?

It's similar to my comment above- set the maintainer to an appropriate
Ubuntu person, which would naturally be the Ubuntu package maintainer,
who might also be the Debian package maintainer.  Really, though, this
isn't a Debian concern or problem- if the Ubuntu developers are
complaining about an automated Maintainer-changing script then that's an
issue Ubuntu needs to deal with and figure a way around, or just ignore.
It's certainly not an excuse to leave the Maintainer field alone.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: