[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: oss-compat (adoption, updated package)

Am Mittwoch, den 08.06.2011, 14:55 +0100 schrieb Simon McVittie:
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 at 15:39:34 +0200, Bruno Kleinert wrote:
> > It seems as if sbuild exchanges the Maintainer field in the binary
> > package. If I schroot into my build environment and use
> > dpkg-buildpackage instead of sbuild the Maintainer field in the
> > resulting binary package remains unchanged.
> When sbuild is behaving like a maintainer or sponsor (as opposed to behaving
> like a buildd) make sure you leave $maintainer_name and $uploader_name unset,
> assuming your sbuild is recent.
*Argh* $uploader_name was set in my .sbuildrc. Many thanks for pointing
this out, Simon!

> In older versions of sbuild, which insisted on having at least one of
> $maintainer_name, $uploader_name or $key_id, it was necessary to
> set $key_id, and also set $pgp_options so that $key_id wasn't used (assuming
> you want to test the package before signing it): see
> <http://www.pseudorandom.co.uk/2008/sbuild-dm/>.

> That page also indicates how to check the .changes file for a sponsored upload
> to check that the right things happened.
Bookmarked! :)

What's the best practice to fix things up? Should I bump the debian
revision of the package and re-upload it? I don't want to be blamed for
hijacking packages by accident ;)

Greetings - Fuddl

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: