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

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


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>


> > 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


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: