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

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

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 10:09:16 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:

> gregor herrmann <gregoa@debian.org> writes:
> > I remember CPAN maintainers (sic!) being interested in the status of
> > their modules in Debian.  Without a Maintainer (or whatever) field in
> > d/copyright (or somewhere else but I don't know a better place) we are
> > not able to provide a mapping for that.
> I can definitely see the desire for this metadata, but it feels to me like
> it would be better tracked in a separate file, such as Charles's proposed
> upstream metadata file.

Thanks for the reminder, I should look into this proposal again.
(Although yet another file doesn't make me happy either.)
> This feels like an unreliable way to provide that mapping anyway, since
> people's e-mail addresses and even the forms of their names vary over
> time, and I'm not sure you'd reliably get the right data.  I think you'd
> want to have a field somewhere where you can track people by CPAN ID,
> which wouldn't change.

Good idea for this use case.

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 06:18:01 +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:

> Would the Homepage: field that points at the module's CPAN page be good
> enough?

Not really, unless a maintainer only has one module which is rather
the exception than the rule.
> 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?

I'm fine with both having it as an optional field or not mentioned
in the spec but "only" used by those interested.
(The former option having the advantage of having the field names
more uniform.)
> 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 agree, the "old" Upstream-* fields were clearer, therefore I'm in
favour of switching back to them.

 .''`.   http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG key IDs: 0x8649AA06, 0x00F3CFE4
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/
 `. `'   Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe
   `-    BOFH excuse #77:  Typo in the code 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: