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