[aur-general] mistake in packaging guidelines
hollunder at lavabit.com
Mon Jan 18 18:57:42 EST 2010
Excerpts from vlad's message of Sun Jan 17 16:26:33 +0100 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.
For completeness sake, what started this was this package maintained by
More information about the aur-general