On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 11:26:36PM +0530, Abhishek Dasgupta wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 10:25:23AM -0400, Daenyth Blank wrote:
Regardless of what it once was, I think the current method is silly and needlessly confusing. Contributor should be there to credit the previous handlers for a package. Maintainer should just be the person who is currently in charge of keeping it working, whether binary or otherwise. Pacman's "Packager" data is kept for the binary files, making the current use of Maintainer redundant.
I think it should be changed to the more logical way. Anyone else have an opinion on that?
While I agree with you, there are some cases where Maintainer and Contributor overlap. Consider the following scenario:
1. X has contributed the package foo 1.0 to AUR 2. X orphans it after some time 3. Y picks it up, and adds Maintainer: tag. 4. Y updates the version to 1.1 after some time. 5. Y orphans the package. 6. Z picks it up. Now should Z a) Replace the current Maintainer tag? b) Replace and move Y to Contributor: list?
I think 6b) is better because it preserves history and gives credit to everyone who worked on the PKGBUILD at some point. While the Contributor: list can get lengthy, I see no other way out.
Why not just use multiple lines? One for each contributor? It's far easier this way. And can expand from 1 to 100 contributors (though the PKGBUILD would be annoying to look at). Cheers, Aaron PS Test sending from muttng. Woo