Re: [DEP5] [patch] Renaming the ‘Maintainer’ field ‘Contact’
On to, 2010-08-19 at 06:56 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> 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.
There was a little bit of discussion on #debian-perl about this.
Summary, if I understood correctly: pkg-perl would like to use
Upstream-Name to more reliably connect a CPAN module and its Debian
package (Homepage does not always point at the CPAN page), and
Upstream-Contact to more easily connect a Debian package of a CPAN
module with its author.
I can imagine Python modules, and other such sets of modules, might want
to do the same thing. These sets of modules have naming schemes, but
they are not always 100% accurate.
Now, it is certainly true that these are convenience fields, not
strictly required by Policy or ftpmaster, but nevertheless interesting
to a bunch of people. Thus it makes sense to me to standardize the name
rather than everyone invent their own. The compromise between strict
minimalism and overall convenience, if you will.
I therefore intend to keep the fields in the spec, unless there's a wave
of opposition. I hope that this is acceptable. (The volume of DEP-5
discussion dropped to low enough that it's getting hard to measure