Lars Wirzenius <[email protected]> writes: > On the other hand, the field currently known as Maintainer: is already > optional, so it's OK to leave it out, and when it's useful to, say, > pkg-perl, it can be added. Russ, since you objected to it, what do you > think?
> About renaming it: I feel it would be better to be explicit that it's an > upstream thing. Thus, Upstream-Maintainer or Upstream-Contact, and > perhaps also renaming Name: to Upstream-Name: at the same time. What do > others think? I like Upstream-Name for people who want to note that information. I think Upstream-Maintainer makes the most sense as the name of the field. I have no objections to keeping fields that people want to use, even if I don't want to use them, as long as they're marked optional. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
