Re: Shall we state on naming (again)?

[Ralf Treinen <treinen@club-internet.fr>]

On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 09:29:04PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:

> > I remember that there were plans for allowing for additional
> > "uploaders" of packages. That would be helpful for ocaml packages,
> 
> Err, what do you mean by additional "uploaders", and from who were those
> plans ?

I'm glad that I am not the only one who missed it:

Developers Reference, Section 5.4: Collaborative maintenance


  Collaborative maintenance" is a term describing the sharing of Debian
  package maintenance duties by several people. This collaboration is
  almost a good idea, since it generally results in higher quality and
  faster bug fix turnaround time. It is strongly recommended that packages
  in which a priority of Standard or which are part of the base set have
  co-maintainers.

  Generally there is a primary maintainer and one or more co-maintainers.
  The primary maintainer is the whose name is listed in the Maintainer
  field of the debian/control file. Co-maintainers are all the other
  maintainers. 

  [...]

    * Add the co-maintainer's correct maintainer name and address to the
      Uploaders field in the global part of the debian/control file.

       Uploaders: John Buzz <jbuzz@debian.org>, Adam Rex <arex@debian.org>

    * Using the PTS (The Package Tracking System, Section 4.11), the
      co-maintainers should subscribe themselves to the appropriate
      source package.

> So we will need to rename hevea as hevea-native and hevea-bytecode or
> some other such thing, which will be a problem for users waiting for
> hevea, and not something else.

I don't think that we should create both bytecode and native
vesions of a package, unless there is a real need of our users
to have both available. If it is just for the ease of upgrade
than we should rather search for other solutions.

-Ralf.