On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 04:46:36PM -0400, Public mailing list for Arch Linux development wrote: > On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 15:58:40, Evangelos Foutras via arch-dev-public wrote: > > I am not sure these serve any purpose. The maintainer line duplicates > > information available from the archweb or aur interfaces and could > > also be outdated. The contributor lines are mostly redundant with svn > > or git history, can take up several lines in the PKGBUILD and can > > become irrelevant after significant refactoring. > > > > What are your thoughts on dropping all these seemingly unnecessary > > lines from our official PKGBUILDs? Anyone feel strongly about keeping > > them (and why)? > > I don't feel strongly and would welcome a better system. > > One of the reasons against such a change that was brought in earlier > conversations around this topic is that original contributors are hard > to reconstruct after a package has been moved from the AUR to the > official repositories or vice versa.
Lukas' opinion pretty much reflects my opinion. I just want to add, that other distributions use our PKGBUILDs (Manjaro, ALARM, etc). Having a contributor/maintainer history is the least thing, people can do to 'honor' work related to PKGBUILDs. Maintainer/Contributor lines are also interesting with respect to licensing. This is a difficult topic with no clear answer. Smaller PKGBUILDs are somewhat trivial, but what about bigger ones? I would really like to further read my name in a PKGBUILD in foreign repos like Manjaro, If I have invested hours of work into it (the vault PKGBUILD is one of these examples). Chris
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
