"Packager" field

Mark Rosenstand mark at borkware.net
Fri Sep 29 12:23:30 UTC 2006

On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 15:15 +0300, Antti Nykänen wrote:
> Hi,
> On 2006-09-29 at 00:27, Mark Rosenstand wrote:
> > Anyway, it'd be nice to reach some consensus and see some consistency
> > with the use of that field. Is the info useful? Could it be located
> > elsewhere, e.g. commit messages? If not, wouldn't (multiple)
> > Contributor: fields make more sense, or will there always be at most 2
> > people contributing to a port?
> I think that if something is decided to be left out, it should be
> Packager, since maintainer changes are tracked in svn, and whoever
> imports it should be responsible for the port even if it's copied from
> someone else (this should probably be mentioned in the initial commit
> message). Adding multiple contributor fields doesn't sound very good.

Completely agreed. In contrast to the Packager field, the Maintainer
field is actually useful - the Contributor idea was just to show that
even the current "usage" of Packager (giving credit) is broken because
it only allows one person to be listed :)

More information about the CRUX mailing list