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

Bug#630578: debian-policy: clarify usage of Uploaders field



Michael Prokop <mika@debian.org> writes:

> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Uploaders
> reads as follows:

> | 5.6.3 Uploaders
> |
> | List of the names and email addresses of co-maintainers of the
> | package, if any. If the package has other maintainers besides the
> | one named in the Maintainer field, their names and email addresses
> | should be listed here. The format of each entry is the same as that
> | of the Maintainer field, and multiple entries must be comma
> | separated.
> |
> | This is normally an optional field, but if the Maintainer control
> | field names a group of people and a shared email address, the
> | Uploaders field must be present and must contain at least one human
> | with their personal email address.
> |
> | The Uploaders field in debian/control can be folded.

> I don't mean to nit-pick but I just had a discussion with some DDs
> about who should be really listed in the Uploaders field: a) people
> with Upload *permissions* [DMs/DDs] and therefore actually uploading
> the package (if not being the maintainer itself) or b) whoever is
> co-*maintaining* the package (no matter whether he/she is DM or DD
> and has upload permissions or not).

> Since it wasn't obvious for all of us involved in the discussion I'd
> love to see a clarification in the policy WRT the Uploaders field
> and that the field isn't (necessarily) restricted to a list of
> people with upload *permissions* or doing the uploads themselves but
> that it's fine to list non-DDs/-DMs as well (iff that's true, at
> least that's what was the outcome of the discussion :)).

I'm not sure if we can make it much more obvious than what it currently
says.  There's no mention or hint of permissions anywhere in the
description you quote, and it specifically says "co-maintainers."

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>



Reply to: