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

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

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 03:24:07PM +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On to, 2010-08-19 at 10:31 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
my presonal point of view about fields in this DEP is that they should be required only if they are strictly necessary, and mentionned as optional only if there is a reasonable plan to parse and exploit the data.

I am not aware of a requirement from the Policy or Joerg's message on debian-devel-announce in March 2006 for listing the package name in debian/copyright. Similarly, although it is required to list all authors of a packaged work, there is no requirement to list the upstream maintainer. Therefore, I think that the fields should be optional if they are not removed.

I don't think they're required by Policy or the ftpmasters. At least the pkg-perl team is using Maintainer/Upstream-Contact. I don't think they use Name/Upstream-Name. It's reasonable to expect the package description to mention the upstream name if it differs from the Debian package name, and that would make Upstream-Name somewhat unnecessary.

If pkg-perl, and perhaps others, are going to be using a field to keep track of the upstream contact information anyway, it makes sense to have a standard way of doing that. So I'd like to keep Upstream-Contact.

Anyone else have an opinion on this? That is, should we drop Upstream-Name or not? Anyone opposed to keeping Upstream-Contact?

(The fields will, obviously, be optional, if we keep them in the spec.)

As I understood it, pkg-perl only *maybe* uses tany of this.

CC'ing for comments.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: