Lars Wirzenius wrote: > There's a number of cases where the Debian source package name differs > from the name upstream uses. For example, Iceweasel. On the other hand, > is it useful to track that? Perhaps not. Specifically, is it useful to track it in a machine-parseable format? We already have: Package: iceweasel Description: Web browser based on Firefox > So we have at least three suggestions on the table now: > > 1. Rename Maintainer: to Contact: > 2. Rename Maintainer: to Upstream-Contact: and Name: to Upstream-Name: > 3. Drop both Maintainer: and Name: completely, even as optional fields > > All three seem to have reasonable justifications. I'd like to see if we > have a rough consensus favoring one of them. Can we see a show of hands, > please? (If we don't, I'll have choose myself, and then it'll be 3.) I have no problem with 2, prefer 3. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature