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

Re: Derived distributions and the Maintainer: field

However, if you were to request it - either through a member of core-dev -
or through the person who last updated the package, then as long as
yourdebian package worked exactly as it is intended to in ubuntu - I'm sure
they'd not have a problem with syncing and using your package from debian.

The only reason packages are changed in ubuntu is because they don't work
as expected in ubuntu - whether this be a different "vision" for the
package's use, or just a problem with it having gone through a different
transition/having a different toolchain, is a different point. But even so
- We DO try and use as many things as possible from debian unchanged ;)

Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> writes:
>> Scripsit Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>
>>> If they are also compiled with a toolchain unchanged from Debian,
>>> the binaries can legitimately have the same Maintainer: field as in
>>> Debian, because they are essentially the same package.
>>> If not, the binary packages should have different Maintainer:
>>> fields, unless the maintainer agrees to have his name on it.
>> You seem to require a standard of attribution in the Maintainer field
>> that Debian does not itself follow in our default procedures.  To wit:
>> NMUs _within_ Debian keep the Maintainer field unchanged.
> The difference is that a Debian Maintainer can replace the NMU any
> time he wants with his own package.
> I don't have the same ability to replace a non-Debian altered package.

Reply to: