On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 08:21:23AM +1000, Brian May wrote: > >>>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Metzler <ametzler@downhill.at.eu.org> writes: > > Andreas> uploaded as NMU. Your sponsor probably rebuilt the package with > Andreas> dpkg-buildpackage -mhis@address > Andreas> instead of either using > Andreas> dpkg-buildpackage -kkey???id > Andreas> or > Andreas> dpkg-buildpackage -uc -us > Andreas> followed by a invokation of debsign.. > > In the past there seems to be confusion whether to use the -m option > or the -e option for dpkg-buildpackage when sponsoring packages. > > I take it that the correct option is non-of-the-above, and actually > -k? What's the correct way to eat an egg? Both -m and -k work and do different things. Trying to label one of them as 'correct' is just deliberate myopia. > The issue I have with -k, is that if the upload is messed up for any > reason (e.g. forgot -sa when required), it is the sponsored maintainer > who is informed, not the uploader (unless this has changed recently). Then you want to use -m. That's why I always do. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature