On 2008.06.24 10:30:39 +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:51:43PM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
If a few more people could read this nice short policy and say "yes that looks fine, I agree" then that would be very helpful.
Yes, that looks fine, I agree :)
I would prefer that a missing Maintainer field were a bug in the metadata instead of being semantically significant. Otherwise there would be no way of distinguishing between "I forgot to add my Maintainer line" and "I am not supporting this".
-- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland
The alternative is worse: why is it better to have three values ('Specifically unmaintained', 'Maintained by foo', 'not specified either way/omitted field')? At least with the omitted field being significant, users can proceed knowing that if there is a maintainer of a package with omitted maintainer field, they haven't been too diligent about packaging the program. And we already have a situation where omissions are significant. Consider the license: field. If a license isn't specified, it must, legally, be AllRightsReserved. That's the law. -- gwern MI6 SISDE 36800 Waihopai ple SP4 illuminati FSF cracking rico