Daenyth Blank wrote:
Regardless of what it once was, I think the current method is silly
and needlessly confusing. Contributor should be there to credit the
previous handlers for a package. Maintainer should just be the person
who is currently in charge of keeping it working, whether binary or
otherwise. Pacman's "Packager" data is kept for the binary files,
making the current use of Maintainer redundant.
I think it should be changed to the more logical way. Anyone else have
an opinion on that?
I agree and, from what I've read, many others also believe that the
"Maintainer" tag should denote a package's current maintainer, be it
binary or otherwise. Now, regarding contributors, the list could get
unnecessarily big. Moreover, when someone adopts a package he/she won't
be able to just substitute the previous maintainer but instead will need
to update the contributors list first, which is complicating things
(taking into account that no information is available about the work
performed by the past maintainer). Does anyone else see this as an issue
and share my viewpoint?
