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 point: > 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. Regards, Salvatore
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature