Skip to content
GitLab
  • Menu
Projects Groups Snippets
  • /
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
    • Contribute to GitLab
  • Sign in / Register
  • D debexpo
  • Project information
    • Project information
    • Activity
    • Labels
    • Members
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Contributors
    • Graph
    • Compare
  • Issues 43
    • Issues 43
    • List
    • Boards
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
  • Merge requests 3
    • Merge requests 3
  • CI/CD
    • CI/CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
  • Deployments
    • Deployments
    • Environments
    • Releases
  • Monitor
    • Monitor
    • Incidents
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • Value stream
    • CI/CD
    • Repository
  • Snippets
    • Snippets
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
Collapse sidebar
  • mentors.debian.net
  • debexpo
  • Issues
  • #148
Closed
Open
Issue created Sep 14, 2022 by Akbarkhon Variskhanov@KBarContributor

Upstream-Contact shouldn't be used to determine Author

I don't think it makes sense to use this field in determining the author of a package. DEP-5 explains this field as following:

Line-based list: the preferred address(es) to reach the upstream project.

In my understanding, this is someone who is the current active maintainer (or maybe a group of maintainers) of the project. The name of the field itself kind of implies that. In some cases, the original author isn't even active anymore, yet the project is alive and has active maintainers users can contact. Presenting such persons or a group as author(s) is misleading and potentially troublesome.

To upload designs, you'll need to enable LFS and have an admin enable hashed storage. More information
Assignee
Assign to
Time tracking