On Thursday 31 May 2012 16:15:31 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > [dropping PHP Pear team as cc] > > On 12-05-31 at 03:16pm, George Danchev wrote: > > On Thursday 31 May 2012 11:47:21 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > > You and a lot of others fail to realize that the *SPONSOR* is > > > > responsible for the package. > > > > > > Huh?!? > > > > > > What does "Maintainer:" mean if not the entity being responsible > > > for, well, maintaining?!? > > > > Who is responsible for the package maintenance in the case where a > > non-DD is listed in "Maintainer:", and the package is obviosuly signed > > and uploaded (effectively sponsored) by a DD? I guess it is perfectly > > reasonable to expect that DD, being in the role of sponsor, is > > responsible for the package quality and further maintenance. Sponsors > > are full-fledged DDs, and trying to claim that they are not > > responsible, or are somehow less responsible than any other > > non-sponsoring DDs, for the uploads they have done, is obviously plain > > wrong. > > You avoided my question, it seems: What does "Maintainer:" mean, then?
What does "Uploaders:" field mean? > Seems to me that for sponsored packages the Maintainer field is a joke! The gpg signature applied to the upload is not a joke, at all. > Seems to me that for sponsored packages we need access to ftp logfiles > to resolve who is responsible for maintaining the package. Then, please, allow me to introduce you to the 'who-uploads' utility. > I find both of those plain wrong. Possibly obviously and maybe even > hilariously simple, but wrong nonetheless. Nothing is wrong with the control fields and the gpg signatures applied to the uploads actually. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201205311643.08151.danc...@spnet.net
