On 04/18/2018 05:01 PM, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2018-04-18 at 10:53, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > >> On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 10:45 -0400, The Wanderer wrote >> >>> On 2018-04-18 at 05:55, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > >>>> But that didn't happen, unless you put different meaning into >>>> Maintainer and Uploaders. >>> >>> If you don't assign different meanings to "Maintainer:" and >>> "Uploaders:", what's the point in both fields existing? >> >> The Maintainer field is only allowed to list one person for historic >> reasons. So a new field was added to list additional maintainers. > > If it really is intended that the listed Maintainer be on an equal > footing with any and all listed Uploaders, and there's no semantic > difference between these fields - just the arbitrary limitation that one > of them can't have more than one entry - wouldn't it make sense to > deprecate the Maintainer: field, and move towards using Uploaders: only? > > I'm not sure that would be a good idea, but it would at least avoid the > apparent misunderstanding of the meaning of the roles which seems to > have underlain some of the dispute in this case, and eliminating > meaningless redundancy in a spec is generally a good thing. >
Team maintained packages usually have team's name and mailing list in the "Maintainer:" field and possibly multiple "Uploaders:".
