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

Re: Wording of debian/control handling in Debian Perl Group Policy

Hi Axel, Damyan and Gregor

Thanks to all of you three for commenting on it already.

On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 05:47:55PM +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> -=| Salvatore Bonaccorso, 08.03.2014 14:28:54 +0100 |=-
> > Hi Debian Perl Group :)
> > 
> > I noticed that we have a 'should' in the Debian Perl Group Policy
> > about the Maintainer field in debian/control. I think we always
> > required that packages maintained in the pkg-perl group repositories
> > have that fields actually set to
> > pkg-perl-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org .
> > 
> > Any objection if I commit the attached patch to the policy (changing
> > the should to a must requirement).
> If the diverging packages are only those from your recent mail (a 
> handful), then it seems to me we have a clearly followed policy 
> already. So 'must' is as good as 'should'.

Yep, my main reason for having it written down is indeed your second

> OTOH, not having pkg-perl-maintainers at Maintainer: would prevent the 
> bug reports reaching the group, right? I'd say this is not good at 
> all, and must be fixed. So, 'must' it should be, then. :)

Yes, if the pkg-perl-maintainers list is not the maintainer, we do not
see necessarly the bugreports. So this was my main motivation to have
it stated clear in policy that for pkg-perl maintained packages it is
a requirement that the maintainer is the pkg-perl-maintainers list.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: