On Friday 06 May 2005 02:54, Matt Zimmerman wrote: [ thanks for this summary ] > Given the above, the relevant questions would seem to be: > > If a binary package is built by a third party from unmodified Debian > sources, should its Maintainer field be kept the same as the source > package, or set to the name and address of the third party? > > Should Debian-derived distributions change the Maintainer field in source > packages which are modified relative to Debian? If so, should this be > done in all cases, or only if the modifications are non-trivial? > > I am interested in responses to these two questions from the Debian > community.
To add a bit more analysis: The four important positions when releasing a package are: 1) upstream: She who maintains the software being packaged 2) maintainer: She who maintains the packaging of this software 3) latest-modifier: She who has touched the Debian diff last 4) builder: She who built this binary package 1) is found in the debian/copyright, 2) is the Maintainer:, 3) can be found in the debian/changelog and 4) is typically the signator of the .changes file. Since for many of Debians used packages 2)-4) are the same person, reporting bugs to the BTS is a good way to reach the right person for whatever problem the user has, while it probably be proper to report the bug to 4) or 3) (depending on the problem) - especially when they're not in the same organisation as 2). This is parallel to encouraging users to report _any_ bug in Debian first to Debians BTS instead of bothering 1) before verifying that the problem exists there too. (bin)NMUs are another area where 3) and 4) should be kept in the loop. Regards, David -- - hallo... wie gehts heute? - *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch* - gott sei dank kommunizieren wir Ãber ein septisches medium ;) -- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15
