On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 06:15:33PM +0100, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
- Keep Per as the packager for inherited core ports, with his personal email.
-1.
This will lead to people sending e-mail to Per about stuff that he last touched years ago. Not good IMO.
As you prefer, even I cannot see how this is different from having packager != maintainer everywhere else. I mean, people are supposed to contact the maintainer anyway, not the packager. I'm also fine with core-ports in both fields as a second option, yet it takes some credit away from Per as the original packager.
- Use "CRUX System Team, core-ports at crux dot nu" for the core ports maintainer field - Use the specific maintainer for core ports that the System Team members are not much interested in due to personal preferences, if any (I'm thinking of ports like xfsprogs)
Okay, but what about e.g. core/bzip2? I adopted it some months ago; are you suggesting to make it owned by "core system team" again?
Yes; I thought one of the main tasks of the ST was to be in charge for the core ports, where some additional consistency is needed. The exception above was to offer better support for ports which cannot be reliably tested by the ST (ie if nobody uses xfs) or require some specific knowledge / actual usage (ie exim) Regards, Simone