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

Re: Upload praat 5.3.35-2

Hi Rafael,

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:30:21PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> >So, do you think the change of d/copyright makes another upload
> >necessary?
> No problem, we can wait for the next upstream release.

This does fit my schedule better - just ping me once next upstream is
> >I admit I was not really aware of this topic and I personally
> >think that this does not really reflect the sponsoring method.  In
> >a changelog those people who *changed* something should be
> >mentioned.  In a team upload were several people did changes to
> >the package we are actually doing as policy requests.  However, if
> >the only change I'm doing is changing the target distribution from
> >"UNRELEASED" to "unstable" / "experimental" this is actually not
> >"changing" a package and IMHO the sponsee is actually the person
> >that "deserves the honor" of beeing named as the person who worked
> >on the package.
> Well, the name of the sponsee would appear anyway in the "[ Name ]" tag.

Yes, but that's not machine readable.  I've also forgot another strong
argument yesterday:  If the sponsor is not mentioned in Uploaders (which
quite frequently is the case) using the sponsors name as "changed" will
trigger a lintian warning about NMU - so we even face a conflict between
lintian and policy here.
> >Another argument is from an UDD point of view there is a
> >distinction between changed_by, maintainer and signed_by (in table
> >upload_history). So IMHO it is totally apropriate if I'm appear as
> >"signed_by" because it fits what I really did.
> >
> >In this sense Debian Policy IMHO does not really reflect the
> >reality in this specific case but I admit I do not consider this
> >as an issue that's important enough for me to spend some time into
> >it.
> Fair enough, just keep your current practice.


Kind regards



Reply to: