Nick Black <nick.bl...@sprezzatech.com> writes: > It seems that, even in the case of Debian, this field might be correctly > used when e.g. importing packages that originated in SprezzOS, Ubuntu, > or any other derivative that correctly sets the Maintainer field on new > packages. Thus, this field ought be globally allowed.
I don't believe there's any history of using this header in Debian, so I disagree with this point. The semantics of the field do not fit the way that Debian packages are maintained; Debian never systematically imports packages from another source, and the package maintainer in Debian is wholly responsible for the contents of the package. A Debian package may be a derivative work of packaging done elsewhere, but that's not the same thing as the semantics of the field in Ubuntu (who invented the field and which I assume other derivatives are using for inspiration). There are 10 instances of this header in Debian unstable right now, of which eight are by the same maintainer (Chris Grzegorczyk <g...@eucalyptus.com>) who appears to be an unusual outlier (and seven of those all list the same person as Original-Maintainer). Of the other two instances, one (mffm-fftw) is completely nonsensical (it lists the Debian QA Group as the Original-Maintainer). The last is fatresize, which lists Philippe Coval in both Uploaders and Original-Maintainer, which seems a little strange. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
