"Packager" field

Simone Rota sip at varlock.com
Fri Sep 29 13:19:30 UTC 2006

Mark Rosenstand wrote:
> Hi,


> I've noticed that many of the recent port adoptions in opt and core have
> only changed the Maintainer: field and not added a Packager: field for
> the previous maintainer. In the past I've also noticed a bunch of
> commits pretty much randomly changing those fields, in particular some
> of sten's (danm's previous) ports.

A clarification on core/opt ports previously owned by Per:
We will normalize maintainer / packager information with the next
release. The current headers are a direct consequence of adopting
some port as individual developer and some other as a more
general 'core-ports'.

> Personally I've always wondered what that sort of useless information is
> doing in an otherwise sparse system like CRUX ports. Sure, the creator
> of the port could get some credit, but really, creating a port is
> usually a matter of seconds for the autotools-based ones, minutes for
> others (in general) and a couple of hours for the really tricky/polished
> ones.

Well' I won't call it totally useless, and giving some credit is fine.

> I also tend to think that the Maintainer: field could be left out and a
> repo-wide contact address be used instead (being a virtual one for repos
> with multiple maintainers) - but it does make sense for 'contrib' in its
> current form, at least, so lets leave that out for today.

The Maintainer field is the only information we have inside opt
to see who's owning a port so I think it won't change.
Not sure about the core ports: the core team could decide to
use a virtual user as you suggest, in any case since the field
is needed for opt and contrib I guess keeping it is
a sane decision.

> 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 agree some standardization is needed; I think Maintainer/Packager
served us quite well so far and I see few reasons to change them;
one of them is listing multiple contributors as you pont out: maybe
simply using multiple Maintainers line can allow us to add the info
without having to rewrite some hundred scripts/tools :)

Regards, Simone

More information about the CRUX mailing list