Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <3BF2F947.A2D3C3FE@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 18:07:51 -0500
From: Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.8 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Apps maintainer -- do you want your name/email address in a public 
 place
References: <20011114221729 DOT GA10122 AT redhat DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/)

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> I suggested to Robert that we should have a private list somewhere where
> people maintaining the setup infrastructure could access it.
> 
> Robert suggested adding a field to setup.hint which would never show up
> in setup.ini, like: 'Maintainer".
> 
> I sort of like that idea but it means some work for the maintainers
> themselves.

This seems okay to me.  *One* point that both Robert and I agree on is
that the -src package (after unpacking and patching) should contain the
setup.hint file.  Also, rules under discussion for new packages
*requires* submission of a setup.hint file with new packages.

So now the setup.hint requires a Maintainer field.  Fine.  (Of course,
someone could *directly* access
ftp://my.favorite.mirror/pub/cygwin/latest/ncurses/setup.hint, but if
they KNEW enough to do that, then we're obviously not talking about a
newbie...)

> 
> So, we've also been discussing that the list could be public.  I'm
> certain that if the list was public it would be consistently abused --
> people would be sending me private questions about groff, for instance.
> This is why I've always been adamant about not making this info public.

I don't mind the information being *accessible* by a motivated person --
all of my README's list me as the maintainer.  But, at the very least,
the fact that someone found that information means that they did, in
fact, at least SKIM the README file.

e.g. I *like* a small barrier.  A web page with package<-->maintainer
makes abuse too easy.

> 
> Now, of course, you could put words on the list like "Do not contact
> these people for help, use the mailing list instead" but my experience
> with the cygwin to-do list perfectly illustrates that this will be
> consistently ignored.

You bet.

I vote for non-public.

--Chuck