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

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

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:24:07 +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:

> 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. 

Just as a data point: We are using both (Upstream-)Maintainer and
(Upstream-)Name; I guess we started this because they were both in
the earlier DEP5 spec :)

> 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.

A structured field makes it easier to parse; but as I said earlier, if
we decide to keep (and at some point use) them we still can do so, if
additional fields are allowed.

Let's see what others say ...
 .''`.   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
   `-    NP: JBO: Schlumpfozid im Stadtgebiet

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: