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

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

Lars Wirzenius wrote: 
> 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.

Specifically, is it useful to track it in a machine-parseable format?
We already have:

Package: iceweasel
Description: Web browser based on Firefox

> 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.)

I have no problem with 2, prefer 3.

see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: