Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 16:12:50 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Richard Dawe <richdawe AT bigfoot DOT com>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, Zippo Workers <zippo-workers AT egroups DOT com>
Subject: Re: DJGPP library DSMs
In-Reply-To: <38F07DD1.571F7AE2@bigfoot.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000409161142.12494D-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 9 Apr 2000, Richard Dawe wrote:

> > 4) I think we need a `current-maintainer' directive and the associated
> >    `current-maintainer-email', because the current maintainer might be
> >    someone different from the original author.  This is the case with
> >    many GNU packages.
> 
> Yes, this would be a good idea. Do we need the prefix 'current-' though?
> Wouldn't 'maintainer' and 'maintainer-email' do?

Yes, current can go away.