On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:36:18AM +0100, Sven Mueller wrote: > (dropping debian-devel, this is really not a technical issue) > > Matt Zimmerman wrote on 17/01/2006 20:44: > > 1. Most of the source packages in Ubuntu are inherited from Debian > > unchanged (example: tetex-base). > > False. They are changed through recompilation. So let's assume you are > talking about the source part only.
Well, yes, that's why I wrote "source packages". > Then the problem is that they aren't automatically updated as soon as > their Debian counterpart is updated. So a Debian maintainer has no way to > fix the package in Ubuntu. During roughly the first half of each release cycle, they are. > > Given the above, the relevant questions would seem to be: > > > > If a binary package is built by a third party from unmodified Debian > > sources, should its Maintainer field be kept the same as the source > > package, or set to the name and address of the third party? > > I would prefer to see it set to the name and address of the third party, > but I would accept it if a majority says this is not needed. > > > Should Debian-derived distributions change the Maintainer field in source > > packages which are modified relative to Debian? If so, should this be > > done in all cases, or only if the modifications are non-trivial? > > Definitely: Yes, they should, in either case. Simply for the reason that > even seemingly trivial changes can introduce new bugs. Apart from the > fact that a change which seems trivial to one person doesn't need to > seem trivial to another. Thanks for your opinions. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
