Re: Sponsoring packages confusion?
On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 08:21:49PM +0100, Filip Van Raemdonck wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 06:36:16PM -0600, Adam Majer wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 01:24:07AM +0100, Andreas Bombe wrote:
> > >
> > > Then the section "The sponsor job" on
> > > http://www.internatif.org/bortzmeyer/debian/sponsor/ shows it not how it
> > > should be done (doing it their way will let it appear as an NMU).
> >
> > <snipped from their site>
> > dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -m'Happy Sponsor <nice@foo.bar>'
> >
> > Yes, this is not right....
>
> It used to be right. I used to do all uploads for packages I sponsor that
> way, and didn't have any problems.
> It had been a while though, and when I sponsored something about a month
> (maybe one and a half) ago, built that way, it got tagged as an nmu.
>
> Apparently dinstalls behaviour has changed.
>
>
I already sent an proposal of modification for Developer's Reference.
The Best Right Thing To Do is:
dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -enice@foo.bar
so that changes report both the right maintainer and the right uploader.
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
Reply to: