Bug 3128 - Should AUTHOR be the project now?
Summary: Should AUTHOR be the project now?
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Spamassassin
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Building & Packaging (show other bugs)
Version: SVN Trunk (Latest Devel Version)
Hardware: Other other
: P5 minor
Target Milestone: 3.0.0
Assignee: SpamAssassin Developer Mailing List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2004-03-05 20:29 UTC by Daniel Quinlan
Modified: 2004-03-12 12:29 UTC (History)
0 users


Attachment Type Modified Status Actions Submitter/CLA Status
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Daniel Quinlan 2004-03-05 20:29:19 UTC 
I understand that CPAN does allow projects to be authors, so perhaps we should
change the ownership of the CPAN module to be the SpamAssassin project.

The same question applies for the RPM package since it is not particular to
any distribution.  I believe Debian requires a Debian Developer, so that should
probably remain owned by Duncan, although maybe we should own our own .deb
package and Duncan can continue owning the official Debian package -- that is
Debian's prerogative anyway.
Comment 1 Theo Van Dinter 2004-03-05 21:07:03 UTC 
Subject: Re:  New: Should AUTHOR be the project now?

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:29:20PM -0800, bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.spamassassin.org wrote:
> I understand that CPAN does allow projects to be authors, so perhaps we should
> change the ownership of the CPAN module to be the SpamAssassin project.

+1

> The same question applies for the RPM package since it is not particular to
> any distribution.  I believe Debian requires a Debian Developer, so that should

Sure.  I happen to just build the RPMs on my machine, which means it's
signed and such with my GPG key.  It'd be pretty trivial to do it with
the release key instead.
Comment 2 Justin Mason 2004-03-05 21:42:37 UTC 
+1 to both.  (Even though it may mean less goodies via Amazon ;)
Comment 3 Duncan Findlay 2004-03-06 16:13:47 UTC 
Or should it be "Apache Software Foundation"?

As far as Debian goes, I'm just the Maintainer. The "author" information goes in
/usr/share/doc/spamassassin/copyright:

Upstream Authors: Justin Mason <jm@jmason.org>,
                  Craig Hughes <craig@hughes-family.org>
                  Daniel Quinlan <quinlan@pathname.com>
                  Theo van Dinter <felicity@kluge.net>
                  and others

For 3.0.0 I'm going to have to rewrite this file to update with the new license,
etc, and I'll be happy to add the rest of the committers or ASF or SpamAssassin
Project, whatever. (I don't know why I didn't originally include all the committers)

I don't see any benefit of SpamAssassin providing it's own .deb, but I'd be
interested in your reasoning.
Comment 4 Daniel Quinlan 2004-03-06 16:24:00 UTC 
Subject: Re:  Should AUTHOR be the project now?

> For 3.0.0 I'm going to have to rewrite this file to update with the
> new license, etc, and I'll be happy to add the rest of the committers
> or ASF or SpamAssassin Project, whatever. (I don't know why I didn't
> originally include all the committers)

Yeah, we can (and I think should) probably just list the project as a
whole rather than individual authors.
 
> I don't see any benefit of SpamAssassin providing it's own .deb, but
> I'd be interested in your reasoning.

It might be convenient for people running woody.

I've been using the SpamAssassin 2.63 package from backports.org.  We
could just link to that, I suppose.

Daniel
Comment 5 Daniel Quinlan 2004-03-12 21:29:49 UTC 
fixed in Makefile.PL

closing as FIXED