Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Ian Murdock <email@example.com> writes:
> Fact is, the potential for confusion here never even occurred to
> me when we started doing this at Progeny. Quite the contrary to what
> Matthew suggests, it seems to me that changing the Maintainer
> field is a perfectly reasonable thing to do now that I'm aware of it.
Glad to hear.
Is there anyone from Debian who thinks that changing the Maintainer
field is a bad idea in these cases (remember that this isn't about
credit, because we would certainly request that the Debian maintainer
still be mentioned as such in a suitable fashion)?