Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You quite obviously haven't read > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html yet, where I > wrote (among other important things), "it would be fairly straightforward > for Ubuntu to override the Maintainer field in binary packages". I > explained exactly what is and isn't difficult and for whom.
Notice that what you say, in response to what has been asked over and over, is "my opinion is that changing the Maintainer field on otherwise-unmodified source packages is too costly for derivatives in general." But you say nothing about why. You already have suitable automated tools. Since you are rebuilding the package, you *must* change the version number *anyway*. It is not correct to recompile, and leave the version number alone. If you were not recompiling, then no modification would be necessary. Moreover, what about category (2), packages which are modified? Since you are making a new source package *anyway*, why is it so expensive? In response to your questions, as if they haven't been answered: 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? If the third party has their own bug-tracking system, then the Maintainer field should probably be changed. The original Debian Maintainer should still be acknowledged. 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? In absolutely every case, the Maintainer field should be changed if you have altered the source in any respect. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
