From: andrea@pappacoda.it 
  
 --c10d23fe99c7a3d10939617ab49c6e46719f0308626cb4f25e93de610902 
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=Flowed 
  
 On Thu Aug 21, 2025 at 6:01 PM CEST, Simon McVittie wrote: 
 >> Wouldn't emails to packagename@packages.debian.org still go to devel? 
 > 
 > I don't think Uploaders automatically get these emails just by being 
 > Uploaders, only if they explicitly subscribe? (But I could be wrong!) 
  
 I know you can subscribe to @tracker.d.o emails, but I don't know if (or 
 how) you can subscribe to @packages.d.o ones. If no explicit subscribing 
 mechanism exists, I'd expect emails to reach uploaders as well. But 
 I may be wrong :) 
  
 > So that would look like this? 
 > 
 > Package: example 
 > Maintainer: Example maintainers  
 > Uploaders: Minnie Mouse <...>, Donald Duck <...> 
 > 
 > It isn't obvious (to me at least) that Minnie and Donald intended this 
 > to mean "no strong ownership"; they might equally have meant "we're 
 > using example@packages.debian.org as a convenient contact address that 
 > goes to both of us, but we have very specific expectations for this 
 > package and do not want changes that we didn't approve". 
  
 Yes, this is what I have in mind. I agree that it's not obvious. 
  
 > But if we see 
 > 
 > Package: example 
 > Maintainer: Example maintainers  
 > Uploaders: Minnie Mouse <...>, Donald Duck <...>, Debian  
 > 
 > then I think that makes it a lot more obvious that the two maintainers 
 > are saying, at least, "any Debian developer is welcome to join our 
 > team" (and perhaps also welcoming 0-day uploads from anyone). 
  
 Yes, this is clearer. But also, what's the point of having the 
 Maintainer field then? Of course the "example" package is maintained by 
 the "Example maintainers". At that point, you might as well remove it 
 (as suggested by the other Simon in 
 ), 
 but it feels wrong to me for some reason. 
  
 > adduser, isc-dhcp and some older versions of util-linux are using 
 > their packages.debian.org addresses as a contact point. It isn't 
 > obvious to me whether their maintainers intended these packages to be 
 > collectively maintained by everyone. 
  
 If you're reading: I'd like to hear what you meant! 
  
 Bye. 
  
 --c10d23fe99c7a3d10939617ab49c6e46719f0308626cb4f25e93de610902 
 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" 
  
 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- 
  
 iIoEABYKADIWIQS6VuNIvZRFHt7JcAdKkgiiRVB3pwUCaKdNShQcYW5kcmVhQHBh 
 cHBhY29kYS5pdAAKCRBKkgiiRVB3p4TXAP4769YtFzcxb91xg4vGJo89iWQZ64Zc 
 H4LfCb9HsBJJMgD9HPboqRdmPqASg3JxPjFIOJB1+iEN2qIhm/Vy+dZ26Ao=DXKO 
 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
  
 --c10d23fe99c7a3d10939617ab49c6e46719f0308626cb4f25e93de610902-- 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)