[aur-general] Where to put your name when you adopt an AUR package (was: TU Application)
foutrelis at gmail.com
Thu Oct 9 11:44:21 EDT 2008
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?
I agree and, from what I've read, many others also believe that the
"Maintainer" tag should denote a package's current maintainer, be it
binary or otherwise. Now, regarding contributors, the list could get
unnecessarily big. Moreover, when someone adopts a package he/she won't
be able to just substitute the previous maintainer but instead will need
to update the contributors list first, which is complicating things
(taking into account that no information is available about the work
performed by the past maintainer). Does anyone else see this as an issue
and share my viewpoint?
More information about the aur-general