On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 10:20:30AM -0400, Mike Furr wrote:
> maintainer to d-o-m, so others could help out. Do you guys want to
> have most of the ocaml packages maintained by the group, or should the
> maintainer field just be set that way for (semi-) core packages?
In the package I've uploaded I maintained a clear distinction. Packages
which have me as Maintainer are packages on which I would retain
"control", this means that I took care of the packages tracking new
upstream version and RC bugs, but also that I'm free to choose packaging
"style", cosmetic issues and so on. Of course NMU are permitted, but
they should better follow debian guidelines for NMUs.
Packages in which I've set the Maintainer field to d-o-m are packages
that I consider as maintained collaboratively. This means from one side
that there is no longer a single responsible for them, but rather a
group. From another point of view this also means that people making
changes in those packages should agree on packaging "style" (e.g. they
should use consistently dpatch).
The relation between the Maintainer field and svn is not that tight too,
but of course is handy to have d-o-m maintained package on svn even if
not strictly necessary. You can also inject personal maintained package
on svn if you like so that people can help (Sven IIRC has did it for
ocaml), but again it is not strictly necessary.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature