On 10/16/07, Aaron Griffin wrote:

On 10/16/07, Dan McGee wrote:

...

On 10/16/07, Mateusz Jedrasik wrote:

...

Hi,

I think it should be/would be nice if pacman could show who is the current maintainer of a particular package.

It would make it a lot easier to contact them in case something is broken, not updated, or so.

Currently one has to go to the lenghts of seeing cvsweb, downloading PKGBUILD, and searching for the maintainer in there, often (sometimes at least) ones who are no longer active.

Cheers

I feel like this is a bit of feature-creep if we were to do this, and a bit too tied to the way Arch Linux uses pacman.

Better suggestion - add a namcap rule that yells if the PACKAGER isn't set for a package, then we have all that stuff already in place.

Wow, I completely forgot about the packager field already there. Good call. -Dan

Tuesday 16 of October 2007 18:46:41 Dan McGee napisał(a):

Wow, I completely forgot about the packager field already there. Good call.

-Dan

Perhaphs the packager field could be updated automatically on upload, depending on whoever uploads the file. I reckon it's a safe bet that whoever uploads, packs? Cheers -- Mateusz Jędrasik tel. +48(79)022-9393, +48(51)69-444-90 http://imachine.szklo.eu.org

On 10/16/07, Dan McGee wrote:

This is pulled from makepkg.conf, and built into the package. I don't think modifying packages after they are built is a wise idea.

Agreed. I think a namcap rule should be sufficient here - what do you think Dan?

To Scott: I guess I'm missing your point here. What is wrong with contacting the last packager with any problems?

This was going to be my point. Regardless of maintainer, whoever built the last package should be responsible for the working state of it.

On 10/16/07, Scott Horowitz wrote:

On 10/16/07, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

On 10/16/07, Dan McGee wrote:

...

To Scott: I guess I'm missing your point here. What is wrong with contacting the last packager with any problems?

This was going to be my point. Regardless of maintainer, whoever built the last package should be responsible for the working state of it.

I was making the same point that Mateusz Jędrasik made while I was typing my response. I didn't realize it was an automated process. Yes, I absolutely agree that the last uploader should be considered the packager, that was exactly what I was trying to get across too.

It would be good if the website showed "packager" instead of, or in addition to, "maintainer" in the package info listing, since that is the person we'd be apt to contact. (To be honest, I dislike the subtle distinction..)

It's not subtle internally - the "maintainer" is the person marked in our DB and our web interface. They elect to maintain it. The "packager" is the name embedded in the package itself. Generally, they'd be the same, BUT not all the time.