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

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

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:26:20AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 6:23 AM, Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> wrote:

> > 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
> > consensus. :)

> I'd prefer debian/copyright wasn't overloaded with random upstream
> metadata. It would be better to use one of debian/control,
> upstream-metadata.yaml or DOAP/etc in the upstream tarball.

I'd prefer that any information commonly represented in debian/copyright
today that doesn't have a more appropriate standardized location be
represented in a structured manner in that file.  As long as they're
optional fields, their usage can always be deprecated quite easily in Policy
later, but in the meantime I'd rather see this stuff in a field other than

The fact that we're both expressing this in terms of "preference" means, I
think, both that this doesn't meet Lars's "wave of opposition" standard and
that we're not definitely in bikeshed territory. :)  I support Lars in
deciding this question one way or the other so we can move on.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: