[aur-general] Where to put your name when you adopt an AUR package (was: TU Application)

Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Thu Oct 9 16:07:12 EDT 2008

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).


PS Test sending from muttng. Woo

More information about the aur-general mailing list