Charles Plessy <[email protected]> writes:
> Le Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 01:11:27PM +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
> > Every package must have a maintainer. The maintainer must be a
> > member of the Debian project.
Thank you for pointing out the flaws in this formulation.
>
> I think that ‘Every package must have a maintainer for the Debian
> project’ would be the most accurate:
I think “maintainer for the Debian project” is not helpful to know what
counts and what doesn't. It might be accurate, but I think it isn't
precise enough.
> - It allows packages to be maintained by non-members.
> - It takes into account the packages in the contrib and non-free areas,
> that are not part of the Debian OS.
These are good points, thank you for making those distinctions and
clarifying my understanding. Any new formulation should take these into
account.
> - It underlines that the upstream maintainer is not enough if he does not
> actually the package itself for Debian (providing a debian directory is
> not enough)
What is it, then, that distinguishes conformant packages from packages
that simply have a ‘debian/’ directory? If the result is a working
package that otherwise conforms, what more is needed, exactly?
In other words, why is it not enough to simply say:
Every package must have a maintainer.
to satisfy all the points you raised?
--
\ “I put contact lenses in my dog's eyes. They had little |
`\ pictures of cats on them. Then I took one out and he ran around |
_o__) in circles.” —Steven Wright |
Ben Finney <[email protected]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
