On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Enrico Zini wrote: > I quite liked the idea of allowing to set such attributes in the control > file because, rather than looking like someone putting their nose on how > one maintains packages, they are a handy way to document the > maintainer's intentions with the package, providing a service to the > maintainer: for example, if I mark a package dead-upstream, then people > posting wishlist bugs will hopefully take that into account (and > reportbug may remind them about it). People adopting a "fringe" package > for heavy production will have been warned and hopefully will do some > extra testing, and so on.
Both approachs are probably complementary. Using the control file works fine for things which are specific to the package (dead-upstream) or when there is only one maintainer but when you have a package with multiple maintainers, the active/passive classification is really different for each maintainer. The goal is also to discover cases where we have several co-maintainers where everyone thinks that they are backup maintainers and that it's the duty of someone else to handle this bug. For this, debian/control is not suited at all. And when creating the debtags data, we need to have some rules to merge the views of each co-maintainer in a global coherent view. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org