[aur-general] mistake in packaging guidelines

vlad vla at uni-bonn.de
Sun Jan 17 10:26:33 EST 2010


On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 11:35:59PM -0800, Thayer Williams wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 6:58 PM,  <vla at uni-bonn.de> 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. 


More information about the aur-general mailing list