[07:58] <Rhonda> rbasak: What is written in a package as maintainer isn
[07:58] <Rhonda> rbasak: What is written in a package as maintainer isn't within what I do for the packages website.  The website only presents the information from the packages, it is not the source of that information.
[07:59] <Unit193> !info src:mbedtls
[07:59] <ubottu> mbedtls (2.28.3-1, mantic): Packages libmbedtls-dev, libmbedcrypto7, libmbedtls14, libmbedx509-1, libmbedtls-doc. Maintained by Andrea Pappacoda @ https://salsa.debian.org/debian/mbedtls
[07:59] <Rhonda> So yes, I see the point that if there are MOTU related updates to packages that guidelines have to get adjusted.  But I am still unsure why you ping me with that because frankly, I am not doing the MOTU guidelines, won't update all the packages to reflect that change.
[08:00] <Rhonda> … unless someone wants to make sure I can pay my bills, then I'm more than willing to invest the time and energy to update all of these things. :)
[08:00] <Unit193> !info src:python3-uinput lunar
[08:00] <ubottu> Package python3-uinput does not exist in lunar
[08:00] <Unit193> !info src:python-uinput lunar
[08:00] <ubottu> python-uinput (0.11.2-4build1, lunar): Packages python3-uinput. Maintained by Debian Python Team @ https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/python-uinput
[08:01] <Unit193> Dangit, oh well.  I can't get the bot to say it.
[08:01] <Rhonda> rbasak: You might want to discuss that with vorlon instead. :)
[11:56] <rbasak> Rhonda: sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you now have a ton of work. Just wanted your opinion!
[11:56] <rbasak> The binary package python3-uinput in lunar and mantic have "Maintainer: Ubuntu Developers <ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com>" according to apt.
[11:57] <rbasak> I wonder if the packages website is mangling that somehow on the basis of the archive component?
[11:58] <rbasak> Same for https://packages.ubuntu.com/source/mantic/python-uinput - that's not the maintainer in the source tree.
[12:01] <rbasak> I'm aware that pkgbinarymangler does stuff, but the apt binary package metadata is its output, and the maintainer isn't ubuntu-motu@ in there.
[13:08] <Rhonda> rbasak: The data displayed comes not directly from the source package but from the Packages/Sources files in the archive.  Within Debian I know that ftpmasters have overrides files that change data from what's in the source package, I'm unsure if that method is used in Ubuntu too.
[13:09] <Rhonda> But the displayed data is coming from the aggregated files in the archive, not through extracting the source package itself (or even going to the VCS)
[13:15] <rbasak> Rhonda: that's not what I see in the Packages/Sources files though: https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/mKsWyBvyF8/
[13:15] <rbasak> Any idea what I'm missing?
[13:21] <rbasak> Rhonda: ah here it is. So I can just submit an MR to change this to ubuntu-devel-discuss@ I guess?
[13:21] <rbasak> https://salsa.debian.org/webmaster-team/packages/-/blob/ubuntu-master/lib/Packages/Page.pm?ref_type=heads#L82
[13:45] <Rhonda> Guess so.  Should likely be done for all the packages in the archive with that maintainer/uploaders field then.
[13:45] <Rhonda> wait
[13:46] <Rhonda> oh, the packages code overrides the maintainer field, that's interesting - you were right in the first place and I stand corrected.  Sweet. :)
[13:47] <Rhonda> rbasak: Thanks for finding that!
[13:54] <rbasak> Rhonda: no problem. Happy to have got to the bottom of it! So I'll reply to the list then for the record, and if we decide to go head and retire the ubuntu-motu@ list, then it should be straightforward to change that then.
[13:56] <rbasak> (done)
[14:01] <Rhonda> Exactly, yes.  Let me know when that happens, I'm not doing mailinglists.
[14:02] <rbasak> Sure, thanks
[23:38] <Unit193> Someone else had also mentioned something about merging this channel into #ubuntu-devel.