Bug#593611: Clarify whose signature should go in debian/changelog (4.4)
Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr> writes:
> On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 09:10:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> --- 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
> As I said earlier, I do not think that this matches current practices.
> As I see current practices:
> 1) the name in the changelog in the one of whoever ran dch last,
> i.e. the name of the developer who changed the date in the changelog
> last.
> 2) Someone sponsoring a package does not change it in any way.
> Maybe this kind of information are better placed in the developer
> reference than in policy.
Hi Bill,
Your objection here is I think the only thing left to deal with to resolve
this bug, since the patch has otherwise been seconded. As Raphaël pointed
out, I didn't intend a substantive difference between "preparing the
release" and "making the last change"; whoever does the equivalent of dch
-r is what's meant. Do you think this is unclear enough that I shouldn't
merge the patch? I'm inclined to merge the patch since I think we're
falling into the trap of scrutinizing the wording too closely.
I agree that the details that you describe should probably be in the
developer reference rather than in Policy, which is why I'm trying to keep
this as succinct and short as possible while still addressing the original
bug, which correctly points out that the current Policy wording implies
that sponsors of packages should replace the changelog footer with their
own identity (definitely not existing or recommended practice).
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: