Re: Non-DDs as official Debian package maintainers
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Non-DDs as official Debian package maintainers
- From: MJ Ray <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 20:20:18 +0100
- Message-id: <E1EIA8gfirstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 21 Sep 2005 19:38:07 +0200 <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20050920201158.GB9375@squee.verizon.net> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Jonas Smedegaard <email@example.com> wrote:
> [...] and found in one of the bugreports for the package
> the comment "i'm searching for a sponsor for the new revision."
Perhaps a sponsor who does not intend to sponsor the package
any more should open a "RFS" bug in WNPP? No package should
be introduced to the archive by a one-upload sponsor.
> A requirement that the Maintainer field always either matches an entry
> in the Debian keyring or the email ends in "@debian.org" [...]
I am flatly against this. It should be enough that Uploaders
> "Uh, but then the non-DD can't prove the skills of packaging for the
> NM-process," I hear you say. No - just have the non-DD write separate
> changelog entries so that it is obvious what parts of the work you did
> and the non-DD did. You should do that anyway!
If you are given a version to sponsor and it doesn't pass OK, you
should tell the maintainer what bugs need fixing. If you're going
to work on it anyway, aren't the two of you co-maintainers
rather than sponsor and maintainer?
If you want to forbid sponsorship, then there are arguments for
that, but I think it's a change to how we teach at present and
debian would be the poorer for it. Please debate that change
directly, rather than dressing it up as "only DDs should be
credited as maintainers and DDs must take all responsibility".