On Sat, 2010-09-18 at 21:10 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Okay, here's new proposed wording that incorporates some of the discussion > on this bug along with my personal opinion on the best wording. How does > this look to everyone? > > diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml > index 642f672..314d5d0 100644 > --- a/policy.sgml > +++ b/policy.sgml > @@ -1688,11 +1688,14 @@ > > <p> > The maintainer name and email address used in the changelog > - should be the details of the person uploading <em>this</em> > - version. They are <em>not</em> necessarily those of the > - usual package maintainer.<footnote> > - If the developer uploading the package is not one of the usual > - maintainers of the package (as listed in > + should be the details of the person who prepared this release of > + the package. They are <em>not</em> necessarily those of the > + uploader or usual package maintainer.<footnote> > + In the case of a sponsored upload, the uploader signs the > + files, but the changelog maintainer name and address are those > + of the person who prepared this release. If the preparer of > + the release is not one of the usual maintainers of the package > + (as listed in > the <qref id="f-Maintainer"><tt>Maintainer</tt></qref> > or <qref id="f-Uploaders"><tt>Uploaders</tt></qref> control > fields of the package), the first line of the changelog is Seconded. And I don't understand Ben's objection, since I think you've nicely *avoided* using the word 'sign' in the sense of being recorded in the changelog entry. Cheers, Andrew. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ andrew (AT) morphoss (DOT) com +64(272)DEBIAN The truth about a woman often lasts longer than the woman is true. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part