Process for handlng fakesyncs

[Stefan Potyra]

Hi,

Am Saturday 13 February 2010 20:25:36 schrieb Emmet Hikory:
> Martin Pitt wrote:
> > Emmet Hikory [2010-02-14  2:54 +0900]:
> >> 4) There needs to be some review and clarification on the use of
> >> source-maintainer-mangling for fakesyncs and rebuilds
> >
> > My common sense tells me that we should keep the Debian diff.gz as-is
> > (except for the single "fake sync" changelog entry), including the
> > Maintainer field.
>
>     I'd really like to agree with you, but DebianMaintainerField (1)
> states, in part:
>
> "If a source package is modified relative to Debian (this can be
> determined automatically by examining the version number), its
> Maintainer field should be updated either as above, or with a more
> appropriate Ubuntu contact if one exists."
>
>     As much as I think rebuilds and fakesyncs shouldn't need to
> comply, I think that the policy needs to be specifically reviewed /
> revised before we can determine not to mangle the maintainer.

erm, doesn't dpkg (or another tool which I forgot) disallow using an Ubuntu 
address in changelog (which would be the case for the fakesync) and have a 
maintainer with a non-Ubuntu address?

Anyways, imho this thread tries to overregulate things while completely 
ignoring the real problem: Why is a fake sync necessary in the first place. 
Imho we should find rules for the real problem, e.g. if you plan to upload a 
new upstream version before debian does so, please don't fuss with 
the .orig.tar.gz and more importantly please coordinate with the debian 
maintainer. 
Performing a fake sync is imho straightforward enough though when using common 
sense, so I don't see the need to create rules there.

Cheers,
   Stefan.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20100213/1ff96356/attachment.pgp