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

Re: RFC round 5: DEP-3: Patch Tagging Guidelines

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:13:58 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
> > I think that either of ‘Origin: vendor’ (for a patch created by the
> > package maintainer) or ‘Origin: other’ would be better than omitting the
> > field. I'd like to see the examples recommend its use in these cases.
> I don't share this opinion, let's see if we can have some more feedback.

I prefer to omit Origin and interpret a
missing-Origin-with-Author-present as a Debian patch.

Adding a URL (pointing where - to a webinterface of a VCS?) seems
cumbersome, and just stating in some way that the origin is Debian or
the person who wrote the patch/put in into the package seems like a
duplication of information and effort.
 .''`.   http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG Key IDs: 0x00F3CFE4, 0x8649AA06
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/
 `. `'   Member of VIBE!AT, SPI Inc., fellow of FSFE | http://got.to/quote/
   `-    NP: Queen: Innuendo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: