[Martin Meredith] > Thing is, in ubuntu - we don't neccesarily have "maintainers" for > packages. > > We use a collaborative process - anyone who had access can modify the > package. Basically - many many people can change a package, which can > be confusing for people.
Here's the thing: the Maintainer field in the package control file is going to be the target of occasional support requests and related email traffic, whether we like it or not. Not everyone uses reportbug or knows to email the appropriate BTS. So if the Ubuntu package isn't identical to the Debian package (or perhaps even if it is, since it's meant to be run in a different environment that could cause or trigger different bugs), ye Ubunts had best think of an appropriate address to put in that field. Even if it has to be something as general as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Usually, there is someone you can contact regarding a specific > package, and it will either be dealt with by that person, or passed > on to the relevant person. Even better. > I think that this is a big problem, and could easily be solved by > having either proper QA contacts for packages, or at least having a > list somewhere of who to contact for what package. Yeh, the "list somewhere" should be the Maintainer field of each control file. That's what it's there for. And by the way, don't get hung up on whether "maintainer" is the right noun for what I'm asking you to use it for. We already have misnamed fields in Debian control files, particularly "Uploaders", which really means "Co-maintainers".
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
