On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 11:26:36PM +0530, Abhishek Dasgupta wrote: > 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.
Why not just use multiple lines? One for each contributor? It's far easier this way. And can expand from 1 to 100 contributors (though the PKGBUILD would be annoying to look at). Cheers, Aaron PS Test sending from muttng. Woo
