Matt Zimmerman wrote: >On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 08:34:09PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote: > > >>Then I also found, >>http://ubuntu.linux-server.org/mysql-query-browser/mysql-query-browser_1.1.4-1ubuntu2.dsc >> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp$ gpg --verify mysql-query-browser_1.1.4-1ubuntu2.dsc >>gpg: Signature made Tue 19 Apr 2005 10:06:56 AM CDT using DSA key ID >>C098EFA8 >>gpg: please do a --check-trustdb >>gpg: Good signature from "[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" >>gpg: aka "shermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" >>gpg: aka "Stephan Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" >> >> > >Neither this package, nor the site where you found it, is related to the >Ubuntu project in any official capacity. Someone presumably downloaded the >source package from one of our mirrors, modified it (naively, without >considering that Ubuntu might release a version 1.1.4-1ubuntu2) and >published it on their website. I don't know Stephan Hermann, but you could >contact him about your concerns. > > Fair enough. But this package is,
http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/universe/m/mysql-query-browser/mysql-query-browser_1.1.4-1ubuntu1.dsc [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp$ gpg --verify mysql-query-browser_1.1.4-1ubuntu1.dsc gpg: Signature made Mon 28 Mar 2005 01:03:50 PM CST using DSA key ID A94050AF gpg: please do a --check-trustdb gpg: Good signature from "Daniel Holbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" >>I don't understand how I could remain as the maintainer of such a package. >>It is my belief that if the source code is changed, then the Maintainer >>field should be changed as well. >> >> > >The question of whether modified source should have the Maintainer field >changed is a reasonable subject for discussion, but in your particular case, >both of the source packages listed at >https://launchpad.ubuntu.com/people/adamm/+packages are identical to those >in Debian. > True. But Ubuntu is a *different* distribution from Debian. If Ubuntu was a Debian subproject, then I see no problem in keeping Maintainer fields as is. >>nyway, the bottom line is, >> 1. I'm a Debian Developer and chose to be associated with Debian >> 2. I have not chosen or gave permission to be associated with >>modified/unmodified packages of other distributions (that may or may not >>derive from Debian). >> >> > >In my opinion, it does not make much sense to require Debian derivatives to >modify every source package that they share with Debian, only to change the >maintainer field. There is some justification for changing it if the >package has been modified, but this, too is problematic ("<derivative> is >taking credit for my work!"). > > I think all other distributions based on Debian do change the Maintainer field. If someone wishes to be a maintainer for Ubuntu (or Kubuntu, or Gentoo, or Linspire, or RedHat, or ...), then they can apply with a given distribution. If Ubuntu maintainers wish to recognize Debian maintainers for their work, I would welcome that (see below). But the maintainer field should only reference Ubuntu project. The problems I see is in discussions (flamewars?) merits of Ubuntu vs. Debian. I've seen in many places ignorant people saying, "Most maintainers from Debian are now in Ubuntu", or "Debian is dead. Ubuntu is the future". Or the opposites from the other side. I didn't know where this was coming from until I found myself on Ubuntu's website as a maintainer. I'm the maintainer of lpr which is from OpenBSD. OpenBSD is acknowledged in the sources and README.Debian, but I do not set the maintainer field to point to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or similar. >>PS. This is not a troll against Ubuntu. >> >> > >In that case, can I ask why you addressed your concerns to debian-devel, >rather than to the parties responsible for the web pages you found >objectionable? > >The result (which may or may not have been the intent) seems to have been to >stir up emotion among Debian developers, rather than to have the Launchpad >website changed. > > It is bigger than just that one website as "Maintainer: " field in most packages that are part of Ubuntu is left same from Debian. I sent the email to debian-devel maybe because it affects Debian Developers. http://people.ubuntulinux.org/~cjwatson/germinate-warty-output/all+extra.sources I see many debian mailing lists... Is it right for a different distribution to use Debian's support structures? If Ubuntu recognizes the work of Debian developers, then that is a very good thing. For example, if, upon conversion, the debian package is amended to include in README.Ubuntu (or whatever Ubuntu has) something like, "This package was autogenerated from Debian sources on ${date}. The Debian maintainer was/is: ${deb_maintainer}" Then change the maintainer field to: "General Ubuntu Help <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" or similar. I see no problem with that. People wanting to have the recognition of being Ubuntu maintainers can join Ubuntu. Am I correct to assume that Debian Maintainers are able to join Ubuntu using a more fast-track method than someone unknown? I just think whenever a new distribution bases itself on another, the maintainer field must be changed. For example, when a distribution like CentOS takes RedHat sources, they cannot keep maintainer fields pointing back to people at RedHat (I can see the lawsuits right now!). Again, my email is about concerns that Ubuntu seems to keep Debian maintainer fields in their packages, thus appropriating Debian maintainers as Ubuntu maintainers. It has little to do with anything else. - Adam PS. I was just going to see the maintainer fields in packages of UserLinux but their download site seems to be dead (no BT and no mirrors). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
