It seems there is some support to make Uploaders optional, so I made a patch to move this into the realm of actionable:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=798476#462 Has there been any strong opinions to not make that change? I see valid arguments about this diluting the ability to find real humans behind a package, but I think this can reasonable (and more accurately) be resolved by deferring to debian/changelog fields and/or the PTS history on who made uploads. Making the field optional does not forbid anyone to continue using it for what they believe it is useful for. It just makes it possible for people to stop using the field when they don't feel it provides value. /Simon Andreas Tille <[email protected]> writes: > Hi, > > just to support a random of the supportive mails: Many Blends teams I > know are using Uploaders field in a similar way as described in this > thread. Making it optional would really help. > > I know several cases where original Uploaders vanished while the team is > keeping up the maintenance. Its just a mental thing to decide: Is it > OK to reflect reality or will this hurt the person who originally spent > some time into it if the name is removed after X years of no commit. > > Kind regards > Andreas. > > Am Sat, Feb 07, 2026 at 02:01:37AM +0100 schrieb gregor herrmann: >> On Thu, 05 Feb 2026 22:58:22 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> >> > Fabian Grünbichler <[email protected]> writes: >> > So if this is the de-facto situation for Python, Go and Rust team, >> >> Also the Debian Perl Group. >> >> > I >> > wonder if we shouldn't make the 'Uploaders:' field optional to allow >> > team Maintainer: fields without any particular Uploaders: fields. >> >> Hahaha! >> >> I guess I should explain why I'm bursting out in laughter: Yes of course we >> should, and I've argued this several times in the past, and it was always >> was shot down by vocal people who are not involved in any of this team >> maintenance stuff. >> >> > It seems to me that the Uploaders: fields doesn't really reflect any >> > relevant information, or at least none that is kept up to date. >> > Is there any reason we couldn't make this change to policy? >> >> I completely agree, and if you'r going to try and change this, I will >> (again) support this position. >> >> >> Cheers, >> gregor >> >> -- >> .''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer >> https://www.debian.org >> : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 >> AA06 >> `. `' Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation >> Europe >> `- > > >
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
