Re: [DEP5] [patch] Renaming the ‘Maintainer’ field ‘Contact’
Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> writes:
> On the other hand, the field currently known as Maintainer: is already
> optional, so it's OK to leave it out, and when it's useful to, say,
> pkg-perl, it can be added. Russ, since you objected to it, what do you
> think?
> About renaming it: I feel it would be better to be explicit that it's an
> upstream thing. Thus, Upstream-Maintainer or Upstream-Contact, and
> perhaps also renaming Name: to Upstream-Name: at the same time. What do
> others think?
I like Upstream-Name for people who want to note that information. I
think Upstream-Maintainer makes the most sense as the name of the field.
I have no objections to keeping fields that people want to use, even if I
don't want to use them, as long as they're marked optional.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: