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 ... Cheers, gregor -- .''`. 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