On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:38:29PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > 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 > > general." > > But you say nothing about why. You already have suitable automated > > tools. > 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. Huh? Of course you do -- it's called "make". > > Since you are rebuilding the package, you *must* change the version number > > *anyway*. It is not correct to recompile, and leave the version number > > alone. > 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. However if a binNMU screws up a maintainer's package, the maintainer can easily fix it, and doing so is just part of contributing to Debian. The same thing applies when an autobuild on another architecture happens. That's not the case if an Ubuntu rebuild screws things up. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature