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

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

* Matt Zimmerman (mdz@debian.org) wrote:
> I would very much appreciate if folks would review
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html and consider the
> points that I raise there.  I put some effort into collating the issues
> which came up the last time and presenting them.
> It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not
> the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to
> Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian*
> for the sake of changing a few lines of text.

You're already rebuilding the package, which I expect entails possible
Depends: line changes and other things which would pretty clearly
'normally' entail different Debian package revision numbers; changing
the Maintainer field at the same time is just not that hard,
*especially* when you're rebuilding the package.

You're implying that this is alot of work and it's just not.  It's also
not 'forking' in any real sense of the word.  You don't even have to
change the version number if you don't want to.  When done in Debian,
it's also not even a new source package (in general anyway) as the thing
which has the Maintainer field is actually the patch.

As I've pointed out before, this also just plain isn't Debian's problem.
You keep asking for Debian to tell you what 'should' be in the
Maintainer field but then you're ignoring the answer because you think
it's hard.  It's pretty clear what 'Debian' thinks *should* be in the
field, or at least what most people would agree with; sorry that it's
not the simple answer you want but you asked.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: