Hello, On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 11:35:59PM -0800, Thayer Williams wrote: > On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 6:58 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Further when someone disowns a PKGBUILD for some reason, he also drops the > > responsibility for this package. So what's the reason of adding two or > > more persons to the PKGBUILD who actually don't have anything more to do > > with it? > > However, I think the most easy and clear way is to add a single name with > > mail address to the PKGBUILD - this means this person is in charge of it. > > I don't see this as an issue that's worthy of debate so I won't > comment much on the matter myself. Others may disagree... Hehe, me neither.
> Personally, I feel it's important to give credit where credit is due. > IMO it doesn't matter whether someone orphans a PKGBUILD, they still > deserve credit for their initial efforts in creating/maintaining it. > I also believe it's valid for non-TUs to be considered "maintainers" > within the AUR. They are in effect maintaining the package, even if > it's only a build script. Should the package later be adopted by a > dev/TU then the initial maintainer should be credited for their > contribution. That's just good business in my opinion. > > Maintainer == current custodian of the PKGBUILD and/or binaries > Contributor == one who has previously contributed to the maintenance > of said PKGBUILD and/or binary I find this maintainer/contributor stuff and differentiation redundant and confusing. --
