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

Re: removal instead of orphaning?

Ian Jackson:
> Holger Levsen writes ("Re: removal instead of orphaning?"):
>> Maaaaaybe a solution would be a third kind of maintainer/uploader, so
>> people could indicate that they are happy to do house-cleaning work on
>> this package, even though they are not apt to maintain it properly.
>> Maintainers: debian-qa@lists.debian.org
>> House-cleaners: foo@example.org
> I think it might be worth a facility for documenting this kind of
> thing, indeed.
> I'm not sure that a source package control file field is the right
> place for this information, though.  The set of housekeepers might
> change more quickly than the package is updated, and one wouldn't want
> to need to do an upload just because of a housekeepers change.
> [...]
> Ian.

Frankly, I do not think that the source package is the correct place for
the Maintainer / Uploaders data.  There are plenty of cases where it
would make sense to update it "retroactively" after the package has been
uploaded (E.g. orphaned or adopting without an upload).

If we are planning on adding this kind of extra way of being "related"
to a package, which would not be stored in the package itself, could we
then look at pulling the Maintainer + Uploaders field out as well?


Reply to: