[aur-general] Maintainer vs Contributor tag let's find a solution ; )

[Daenyth Blank]

2009/4/5 Angel Velásquez <angvp at archlinux.com.ve>:
> Hi, this thread were discussed in the history, so I think is time to
> clarify and put the correct information to the wiki. (Actually on the
> recent TU application and sunjdk package).
>
> IIRC:
>
> a) Maintainer tag in PKGBUILD is just use for people who maintain the
> binary package generated by this PKGBUILD on official repositories
> (core, extra, community*), and the people with abilities to do this
> are TU and Devs.
>
> b) Contributor tag is for people who upload the PKGBUILD for first
> time or is maintaining it at this time.
This was the previous method, but the general consensus in the
previous discussion was that it made little to no sense, and that it
should be changed.

> But sometimes this is hard to apply, for example I adopted an orphan
> PKGBUILD on AUR and I decided to update it and maintain it, what I
> should have to do:
>
> 1.- Should I remove the past contributor and add myself as a Contributor?
> 2.- Should I keep all the contributor list even if they are more than
> 4 different people (4 lines more to the PKGBUILD)
> 3.- Add myself to the maintainer tag?
5. Change the previous maintainer tag to a contributor tag and add
yourself as maintainer

> IMO I will use the second option, to keep all the contributor list,
> maybe tomorrow I won't be able to contribute with this PKGBUILD but it
> will be nice, to the future owners of these PKGBUILD to know who
> maintained before them. But maybe we will have a long list of
> contributors, so, it would be nice to discuss an idea to have tags for
> maintainers of PKGBUILD with have a binary and contributors of
> PKGBUILDs, as I said, i would like to improve a method to apply the
> second idea.
I don't quite follow... you say that you want to improve the method,
but you insist that we don't change it and use the old one? Please
correct me if I'm wrong

> Please try to don't flame the ideas, try to propose new ones, or
> improve the exposed by me.
Uh.. what? Disregarding this...

> Regards
>
> Note:
>
> * Many people should disagree with the idea about "community" and
> "official repo", IMO if community it's enabled by default on pacman,
> community became official, no matter what the history was...
With this I agree to an extent.

> --
> Angel Velásquez
> angvp @ irc.freenode.net
> Linux Counter: #359909
>