Re: Beyond QA: Uploaders field hygiene

Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> Sun, 16 Aug 2026 15:13:02 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.project
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Quoting Marc Haber (2026-08-16 14:20:00)
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2026 at 04:55:03PM +0500, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
> >On Sun, Aug 16, 2026 at 12:31:47PM +0100, Richard Lewis wrote:
> >>(And keeping these fields in any form doesnt have to mean "only the
> >>maintainer can ever make a change to this package", or "there has to be
> >>a maintainer for every package" - fwiw i agree that lintian field is
> >>unhelpful and should be downgraded)
> >
> >As a reminder, having a human maintainer in a team-maintained package 
> >is a Policy "must".
> 
> What exactly does that mean for my control file?

That it must list at least one active, human maintainer, in either of
the fields "Maintainer" or "Uploaders". And as Tobias points out
initiating this thread, known inactive human maintainers should be
dropped from those fields (only "should" - you don't violate any
policy by having crap in those fields, but make life harder for your
fellow developers in the MIA team by doing so).

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
 * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)