Marc-Andre Lemburg <m...@egenix.com> added the comment: Tarek Ziadé wrote: > > Tarek Ziadé <ziade.ta...@gmail.com> added the comment: > >> In order to clear up the inconsistency with maintainer >> not being a possible meta-data field, I think "Maintainer" >> should be added to the meta-data. Dito for "Maintainer-EMail". > > Do you remember what's the story behind those two fields ?
I don't really remember, but suppose that the field was added for cases where a package is being abandoned by the original author and then maintained by someone new. IMHO, the maintainer could have just added the new contact details to the author field and a mention of the changed maintenance to the description. > I am not sure about the community usage of those since they are competng > with author and author_email on setup() side PyPI just shows the "Author" field, so if a package has different author and maintainer entries, the author field is what's displayed - not exactly useful, since bug reports and the like should normally go to the maintainer, not the author. Adding the maintainer field as well would resolve the issue. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue6992> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
