On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:36:22PM +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> I also want to see this. It makes lots of sense, especially for
> teams maintaining very large numbers of packages. Honestly, the
> individual package does not carry heavy weight in some of those
> teams. At the same time, many packages carry old Uploaders,
> including names of people that have long been known to be MIA, and
> are kept there only to avoid setting an empty Uploaders field.
Let me add the experience of the Debian Haskell Group. We have a
wrapper around debchange(1) which allows us to do team uploads without
having "Team upload." be the first line of the changelog. We select new
upstream versions based on snapshots compiled by an outside group.[1]
We upgrade tens of packages to new upstream releases at a time, and
upload them all together (for some time, Clint Adams has done these mass
uploads). For us, having some random names in the Uploaders: field can
do nothing other than confuse newcomers to the team.
I suspect that we cannot get consensus on this bug. Many people share
Iain's sentiment, but the issue continues to arise in many contributor's
Debian work. So it might be advisable to refer to tech-ctte.
Before doing that, at the risk of achieving nothing, I'd like to suggest
another wording:
... 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. An
exception is made for packaging teams which state clearly on their
homepage, documentation or team policy that all packages are taken
care of by every team member collectively.
Possibly too bureaucratic, but might allay some of the concerns that
Tobi raised: barely-established teams aren't likely to have a team
homepage/documentation/policy document.
[1] https://www.stackage.org/
--
Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature