Re: Don't use dpkg-buildpackage -m, especially not with NMUs
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <jeroen@wolffelaar.nl> wrote:
> Regarding actual problem, from the archives, I see at least this
> thread[1] about incorrect use of -m.
And Andreas Metzler explained a couple of ways how to do it right. However...
> Another thing that occasionally goes
> wrong[2] is using -e for sponsored uploads, and is why I originally
> thought that the difference changed-by <-> maintainer is sourceful
> .changes is the reason for being considered NMU (and I now realize that
> it is 'is changed-by part of maintainer or uploaders in the .dsc?').
I could find nowhere a clear description of the (intended and actual)
differences between -m and -e. Furthermore, when using
dpkg-buildpackage -uc -us together with debsign, there's no mention of
the actual uploader e-mail in the .changes file, is it?
Before I came aware of this thread, I just uploaded my first package as
a sponsor, and I used "dpkg-buildpackage -efrank@debian.org -uc -us" and
debsign, resulting in
$ grep @ fityk_0.4.2-1_i386.changes
Maintainer: Carlo Segre <segre@iit.edu>
Changed-By: frank@debian.org
This looks good to me from a documentation point of view: The sponsee is
listed as maintainer, I was the one who last touched the package, and am
responsible for correct compilation (and responsible for everything,
anyway).
>From reading this thread, I guess this will be treated as an NMU. But
how else can I document that it was me who actually uploaded?
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Reply to: