Hi, On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 05:56:20PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Sat, 08 Mar 2014 14:28:54 +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > > 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 . > > <comment mode="gr(e|a)ybeard> > I vaguely remember that in the olden days there were/was one or more > people who preferred to be in Maintainer for packages they brought > into the group. > Maybe this "should" comes from thess pre-historic times. > </comment> Ok. > > Any objection if I commit the attached patch to the policy (changing > > the should to a must requirement). > > I think it (1) makes sense and (2) mostly reflects reality, so I'm in > favour of writing it down. > > Thanks for catching this detail! > > (From a languange POV I'm not sure if "packages must list" or just > "packages list" is better; I'm fine with whatever some native > speaker declares as more idiomatic.) Ok, let's wait for a comment of some native speaker on the correct wording! Regards, Salvatore
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature