On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:13:58 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Ben Finney wrote: > > I think that either of ‘Origin: vendor’ (for a patch created by the > > package maintainer) or ‘Origin: other’ would be better than omitting the > > field. I'd like to see the examples recommend its use in these cases. > I don't share this opinion, let's see if we can have some more feedback.
I prefer to omit Origin and interpret a missing-Origin-with-Author-present as a Debian patch. Adding a URL (pointing where - to a webinterface of a VCS?) seems cumbersome, and just stating in some way that the origin is Debian or the person who wrote the patch/put in into the package seems like a duplication of information and effort. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG Key IDs: 0x00F3CFE4, 0x8649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT, SPI Inc., fellow of FSFE | http://got.to/quote/ `- NP: Queen: Innuendo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
