DM and pkg-perl
peter at makholm.net
Thu Nov 22 10:34:12 UTC 2007
Damyan Ivanov <dmn at debian.org> writes:
> The problems I see with the "clean Uploaders" approach are more of a
> social mater. "Oh, they don't trust me, stupid DDs, who do they think
> they are" anyone? :)
> New debian/control field would not avoid this :/
We don't "clean Uploaders". We rename it and trust people just as much
as befor we renamed the field. Yes - it's just chosing some other
words but that applies to most social matters.
After having renamed our present Uploaders field we can talk about
adding DM-Allow-Uploads: Yes to all packages and start adding DM's to
the new Uploaders field.
My new proposed XS-Co-maintainer field shouldn't solve the social
problem. It should primary solve the technical problem of keeping
track of which package you were directly involved with.
The only way to avoid the "Oh, they don't trust me" is the "wide open"
approach. Even just keeping the current practice open up for that
argument. But frankly, just because some debian developer trust that a
person is able to upload some random leaf package I'm not sure why we
as a groupd necessarily should trust the person to take proper care of
packages in the middle of the dependecy graph.
We have been given the power to decide who to trust and no matter how
we are using this power or don't use it at all people will be able to
complain about how we are using this power. Yes it's a social mater
and the best way to "solve" it is just to acknowledge it and try to
agree on how to use our newly given power.
More information about the pkg-perl-maintainers