On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Ionut Biru wrote:

On 01/16/2010 06:12 PM, hollunder@lavabit.com wrote:

...

Please have a look here:

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards#Submitting_Pack...

It says: Please add a comment line to the top of your PKGBUILD file that follows this format. Remember to disguise your email to protect against spam: # Contributor: Your Name<address at domain dot com>

This is wrong and should read: # Maintainer: Your Name<address at domain dot com>

you are correct.

It's a half-truth isn't it? I mean if if is the first time a package is being submitted to the AUR it *should* be Contributor and not Maintainer. The Maintainer should only be appended to the list if replacing an existing PKGBUILD. At least that was my understanding of it.

Am Sa, 16.01.2010, 17:32 schrieb Thayer Williams:

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Ionut Biru wrote:

...

On 01/16/2010 06:12 PM, hollunder@lavabit.com wrote:

...

Please have a look here:

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards#Submitting_Pack...

It says: Please add a comment line to the top of your PKGBUILD file that follows this format. Remember to disguise your email to protect against spam: # Contributor: Your Name<address at domain dot com>

This is wrong and should read: # Maintainer: Your Name<address at domain dot com>

you are correct.

It's a half-truth isn't it? I mean if if is the first time a package is being submitted to the AUR it *should* be Contributor and not Maintainer. The Maintainer should only be appended to the list if replacing an existing PKGBUILD. At least that was my understanding of it.

Hi all, My two cents: I think this "maintainer" and "contributor" stuff goes the wrong way and - for me - it does not make much sense how it is now. First I want to point out how I see it and how I understood it when I started using Arch. Adding a PKGBUILD to the AUR is a "loose" contribution to the Arch community (that does _not_ mean that one has no responsibility for the PKGBUILD). You made a PKGBUILD for yourself and think that someone out there might also find it useful. So you add it to the AUR as a community contributor. A "maintainer" is someone who actually maintains a binary package and/or has a trustworthy state, ie at least a TU. Now to the status-quo. I see no sense at all adding a person to the PKGBUILD who submitted it some years ago, because this person has nothing more to do with the "new" PKGBUILD, even if it hasn't changed. Perhaps he doesn't use Arch anymore. So why add him as a contributor? Only for the credits? For example a package like the "kernel26-n130" one. I took the config from the "kernel26-nc10" package, because it's almost the same hardware (ok, I made some changes); the PKGBUILD itself is built upon the stock kernel one. If it were for the credits then I'd had to add all the persons who contributed these packages, though they have nothing to do with this particular PKGBUILD. From this point of view taking care of all the credits would go much too far and blurs the idea behind a "contributor". Further when someone disowns a PKGBUILD for some reason, he also drops the responsibility for this package. So what's the reason of adding two or more persons to the PKGBUILD who actually don't have anything more to do with it? However, I think the most easy and clear way is to add a single name with mail address to the PKGBUILD - this means this person is in charge of it. AMEN

Hello, On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 11:35:59PM -0800, Thayer Williams wrote:

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 6:58 PM, wrote:

...

Further when someone disowns a PKGBUILD for some reason, he also drops the responsibility for this package. So what's the reason of adding two or more persons to the PKGBUILD who actually don't have anything more to do with it? However, I think the most easy and clear way is to add a single name with mail address to the PKGBUILD - this means this person is in charge of it.

I don't see this as an issue that's worthy of debate so I won't comment much on the matter myself. Others may disagree... Hehe, me neither.

Personally, I feel it's important to give credit where credit is due. IMO it doesn't matter whether someone orphans a PKGBUILD, they still deserve credit for their initial efforts in creating/maintaining it. I also believe it's valid for non-TUs to be considered "maintainers" within the AUR. They are in effect maintaining the package, even if it's only a build script. Should the package later be adopted by a dev/TU then the initial maintainer should be credited for their contribution. That's just good business in my opinion.

Maintainer == current custodian of the PKGBUILD and/or binaries Contributor == one who has previously contributed to the maintenance of said PKGBUILD and/or binary I find this maintainer/contributor stuff and differentiation redundant and confusing.

--

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:57:42AM +0100, Philipp Überbacher wrote:

...

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 11:35:59PM -0800, Thayer Williams wrote:

...

Personally, I feel it's important to give credit where credit is due. IMO it doesn't matter whether someone orphans a PKGBUILD, they still deserve credit for their initial efforts in creating/maintaining it. I also believe it's valid for non-TUs to be considered "maintainers" within the AUR. They are in effect maintaining the package, even if it's only a build script. Should the package later be adopted by a dev/TU then the initial maintainer should be credited for their contribution. That's just good business in my opinion.

+1

...

...

Maintainer == current custodian of the PKGBUILD and/or binaries Contributor == one who has previously contributed to the maintenance of said PKGBUILD and/or binary

This is also what is meanwhile reflected by: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards#Submitting_Pack... -- Florian Friesdorf GPG FPR: EA5C F2B4 FBBB BA65 3DCD E8ED 82A1 6522 4A1F 4367 Jabber/XMPP: flo@chaoflow.net OTR FPR: 9E191746 213321FE C896B37D 24B118C0 31785700 IRC: chaoflow on freenode,ircnet,blafasel,OFTC

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Philipp Überbacher wrote:

It's not possible for me to change it, hence this mail. Seems I forgot to mention this..

I can make the update...the question is do we want the maintainer at the top or bottom of the list. I've always appended the maintainer to the bottom, but I know some folks feel it should be the other way around.

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Ionut Biru wrote:

On 01/16/2010 07:18 PM, Thayer Williams wrote:

...

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Philipp Überbacher  wrote:

...

It's not possible for me to change it, hence this mail. Seems I forgot to mention this..

I can make the update...the question is do we want the maintainer at the top or bottom of the list.  I've always appended the maintainer to the bottom, but I know some folks feel it should be the other way around.

i prefer top too.

Top it is...how does this look? http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards#Submitting_Pack...

On 01/16/2010 07:31 PM, Thayer Williams wrote:

...

i prefer top too.

Top it is...how does this look?

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards#Submitting_Pack...

perfect -- Ionut