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

Re: [DEP5] [patch] Renaming the ‘Maintainer’ field ‘Contact’

On la, 2010-08-14 at 11:54 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Similarly, the Name field is not data that policy requires be in
> debian/copyright. On my latest read of DEP5, I thought this was
> completly redundant with the already redundant source package name in
> the changelog, control file, etc.

There's a number of cases where the Debian source package name differs
from the name upstream uses. For example, Iceweasel. On the other hand,
is it useful to track that? Perhaps not.

So we have at least three suggestions on the table now:

1. Rename Maintainer: to Contact:
2. Rename Maintainer: to Upstream-Contact: and Name: to Upstream-Name:
3. Drop both Maintainer: and Name: completely, even as optional fields

All three seem to have reasonable justifications. I'd like to see if we
have a rough consensus favoring one of them. Can we see a show of hands,
please? (If we don't, I'll have choose myself, and then it'll be 3.)

Reply to: