Bug#798476: debian-policy: don't require Uploaders

2017-08-03 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:41:07PM -0400, David Bremner wrote: > > > > So yes at any time they are a number of active, hard-working team, but there > > also a larger number of phantom team that used to be active, but whose > > packages are still maintained in Debian. It is important they carry

Bug#798476: debian-policy: don't require Uploaders

2017-08-02 Thread David Bremner
> > So yes at any time they are a number of active, hard-working team, but there > also a larger number of phantom team that used to be active, but whose > packages are still maintained in Debian. It is important they carry some > valid information about the effective maintainers. > What are

Bug#798476: debian-policy: don't require Uploaders

2017-08-01 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
> The problem is that the information in Uploaders is no more likely to > be up-to-date than the team homepage/policy/docs. I disagree: team homepage/policy/docs can go unmaintained for long, whereas every upload triggers a lintian warning unless the uploader is listed as such (and unless

Bug#798476: debian-policy: don't require Uploaders

2017-08-01 Thread Bill Allombert
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 07:18:41AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello Bill, > > On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 02:48:36PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > The problem is that the majority of such documentation is outdated and > > obsolete to the point of being useless. > > Most team start big and then

Bug#798476: debian-policy: don't require Uploaders

2017-08-01 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 04:33:49PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: >... > Before doing that, at the risk of achieving nothing, I'd like to suggest > another wording: > > ... if the Maintainer control field names a group of people and a > shared email address, the Uploaders field must be

Bug#798476: debian-policy: don't require Uploaders

2017-07-15 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello Bill, On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 02:48:36PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > The problem is that the majority of such documentation is outdated and > obsolete to the point of being useless. > Most team start big and then slowly falter until they are reduced to > a single member (because it is

Bug#798476: debian-policy: don't require Uploaders

2017-07-15 Thread Bill Allombert
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 04:33:49PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > ... if the Maintainer control field names a group of people and a > shared email address, the Uploaders field must be present and must > contain at least one human with their personal email address. An > exception is

Bug#798476: debian-policy: don't require Uploaders

2017-07-14 Thread Sean Whitton
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:36:22PM +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > I also want to see this. It makes lots of sense, especially for > teams maintaining very large numbers of packages. Honestly, the > individual package does not carry heavy weight in some of those > teams. At the same time,

Bug#798476: debian-policy: don't require Uploaders

2016-07-15 Thread Christian Hofstaedtler
* Tobias Frost [160715 21:03]: > > These packages are clearly not not-maintained (teams care about > > them), so orphaning or assinging to Debian QA Group would make no > > sense whatsoever. [..] > From my short time as MIA member I can tell it is already hard enough > to find

Bug#798476: debian-policy: don't require Uploaders

2016-07-15 Thread Tobias Frost
Am Freitag, den 08.07.2016, 17:36 +0200 schrieb Christian Hofstaedtler: > * Julien Cristau [160708 15:31]: > > for some time I've been uploading packages with Maintainer set to a > > mailing list and no Uploaders field.  In cases where some package > > kind > > of fit within

Bug#798476: debian-policy: don't require Uploaders

2016-07-08 Thread Christian Hofstaedtler
* Julien Cristau [160708 15:31]: > for some time I've been uploading packages with Maintainer set to a > mailing list and no Uploaders field. In cases where some package kind > of fit within a team, but noone cares specifically about that individual > package, I feel it's

Bug#798476: debian-policy: don't require Uploaders

2015-09-10 Thread Raphael Hertzog
Hi, On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, Charles Plessy wrote: > if I remember well, this policy was set because some developers were > (rightfully in my opinion) annoyed when the Maintainer field is a moderated > mailing list and there is no Uploader field. I don't think that this requirement makes sense. They

Bug#798476: debian-policy: don't require Uploaders

2015-09-10 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > No, we should stop filing O bugs. Instead we have just come up with a > nice definition of an orphaned package, it's called the > no-human-maintainer lintian tag: > https://lintian.debian.org/tags/no-human-maintainers. Sorry, the correct link is

Bug#798476: debian-policy: don't require Uploaders

2015-09-09 Thread Julien Cristau
Package: debian-policy Severity: wishlist Hi, for some time I've been uploading packages with Maintainer set to a mailing list and no Uploaders field. In cases where some package kind of fit within a team, but noone cares specifically about that individual package, I feel it's better than

Bug#798476: debian-policy: don't require Uploaders

2015-09-09 Thread Bill Allombert
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:57:27PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 21:54:29 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:10:31PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > > > Package: debian-policy > > > Severity: wishlist > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > for some time

Bug#798476: debian-policy: don't require Uploaders

2015-09-09 Thread Julien Cristau
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 22:30:10 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:57:27PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 21:54:29 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:10:31PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > > > > Package:

Bug#798476: debian-policy: don't require Uploaders

2015-09-09 Thread gregor herrmann
On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 21:54:29 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:10:31PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > > for some time I've been uploading packages with Maintainer set to a > > mailing list and no Uploaders field. > Do you realize that upload of such package will count as

Bug#798476: debian-policy: don't require Uploaders

2015-09-09 Thread Bill Allombert
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:10:31PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Severity: wishlist > > Hi, > > for some time I've been uploading packages with Maintainer set to a > mailing list and no Uploaders field. Do you realize that upload of such package will count as an NMU ?

Bug#798476: debian-policy: don't require Uploaders

2015-09-09 Thread Iain R. Learmonth
Package: debian-policy Followup-For: Bug #798476 Hi, So I've had a quick chat with jcristau about this in #debian-doc. Here is my proposal: Instead of allowing there to be no named person for packages, allow packages to be orphaned but without the changing of the Maintainer field if it was

Bug#798476: debian-policy: don't require Uploaders

2015-09-09 Thread Iain R. Learmonth
Package: debian-policy Followup-For: Bug #798476 Hi, N! Every package *must* have at least one named *person*. If it doesn't have a named person, it's orphaned. If you don't care about the package enough to maintain it, orphan it so that someone else can or otherwise request its

Bug#798476: debian-policy: don't require Uploaders

2015-09-09 Thread Julien Cristau
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 21:54:29 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:10:31PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > > Package: debian-policy > > Severity: wishlist > > > > Hi, > > > > for some time I've been uploading packages with Maintainer set to a > > mailing list and no