On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 10:25:23AM -0400, 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?
While I agree with you, there are some cases where Maintainer and Contributor overlap. Consider the following scenario: 1. X has contributed the package foo 1.0 to AUR 2. X orphans it after some time 3. Y picks it up, and adds Maintainer: tag. 4. Y updates the version to 1.1 after some time. 5. Y orphans the package. 6. Z picks it up. Now should Z a) Replace the current Maintainer tag? b) Replace and move Y to Contributor: list? I think 6b) is better because it preserves history and gives credit to everyone who worked on the PKGBUILD at some point. While the Contributor: list can get lengthy, I see no other way out. -- Abhishek Dasgupta <http://abhidg.mine.nu> GPG 67972DOF pgp.mit.edu
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
