Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:09:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Notice that what you say, in response to what has been asked over and
> over, is "my opinion is that changing the Maintainer field on
> otherwise-unmodified source packages is too costly for derivatives in
> But you say nothing about why. You already have suitable automated
I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have. The fact
is, we import most Debian source packages unmodified, and do not have any
such tool for modifying them.
> Since you are rebuilding the package, you *must* change the version number
> *anyway*. It is not correct to recompile, and leave the version number
I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs
don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled.
> Moreover, what about category (2), packages which are modified? Since you
> are making a new source package *anyway*, why is it so expensive?
If you re-read your own quote above, you'll see that I was talking about
otherwise-unmodified source packages, not source packages which were
modified anyway, and if you re-read
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html, you'll see that
my second question simply asked whether this would be appropriate.
> In response to your questions, as if they haven't been answered:
So far I've received two clear responses in this thread. I do like jvw's
idea of setting up a poll, and that will be a much more effective way to
collect opinions on this. I've sent him my proposed options for the poll.
I do expect, however, for this decision to be taken with regard to all
Debian derivatives, and not to single out Ubuntu with a different set of