Bug#593611: Clarify whose signature should go in debian/changelog (4.4)
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 02:24:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 10:46:18AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > 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).
>
> It is clear we agree on the fundamental issues, so I will trust your judgement
> on the wording. I am always concerned that removing one ambiguity will introduce
> another.
Russ, should I apply your patch even after Dimitri comment about sponsored NMU ?
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: