Re: Packaging team best practice
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 14:54, Noah Slater <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I have been having some discussion with a member of the Erlang packaging team
> about best practice and comparing this with the Python Modules packaging team.
> The two teams approach things slightly differently...
> Python Modules
> * The focus is on individual maintainership
> * Uploaders is always set to the team email address
> * Maintainer is generally set to the email address of the primary person
> maintaining the package even though as a team the package is sometimes
> edited by other people
This is not entirely true: each one can choose to set maintainer as
the team or a "real person"; for example, take a look to every module
I package in the team: the Maintainer field is always set to the
Additionally, this was already discussed some time back.
[ ... 8< ... ]
Well, you can even cite the perl team, with a different policy
> Clearly some teams will organise differently, and that's fine, but it would be
> nice if we could agree a set of guidelines for using the Maintainer/Uploaders
> fields consistently across teams.
> This would, at least, make using the Quality Assurance reports more useful.
> The closest thing I could find to a set of packaging team guidelines is:
> Nothing is mentioned in relation to this issue.
I think I'm not seeing the issue here: some team can even just provide
a "common place to store package", a "wing" under which maintainer can
keep the package.
> Thoughts? Feedback? Am I missing some existing documentation?
Well, I think that teams are composed by people with a common intent,
so if those people agreed on a process to maintaint package, so let it
I don't know if "imposing" something would come out with a better
situation than the actual one.
Sandro Tosi (aka morph, Morpheus, matrixhasu)
My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi