Am Mittwoch, den 08.06.2011, 14:48 +0200 schrieb Bruno Kleinert: > Am Mittwoch, den 08.06.2011, 14:57 +0300 schrieb Peter Pentchev: > > On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 12:10:48PM +0200, Sven Hoexter wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 01:06:59AM +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote: > > > > Dear mentors, > > > > > > > > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.0.5 of the package > > > > "oss-compat", which I am adopting within the games team. (I believe this > > > > makes sense since the main users of the Open Sound System nowadays are old > > > > Linux games.) > > > > > > Looks like we've another case of duplicated work here: > > > http://packages.qa.debian.org/o/oss-compat/news/20110608T100624Z.html > > > > Nope, not duplicated work; the changelog entry is identical to the one > > that Stephen Kitt worked on in the pkg-games Git repository: > > http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-games/oss-compat.git;a=blob;f=debian/changelog;h=d8b7ea6d6b79bf5125ade0d8f775856d535b40ee;hb=HEAD > > (argh, yep, ugly URL - just the latest rev of the debian/changelog file in > > the pkg-games/oss-compat.git repository on Alioth Reborn) > > > > I'm not really sure why Fuddl reset the maintainer field when uploading; > > the usual practice is to set it to the Debian Games Team (as Stephen did) > > and, if necessary, put the uploader's name in the, well, Uploaders field :) > Oops, did I break or change anything? If anything changed in the package > it was unintentionally! Could sbuild or dpkg-buildpackage have tricked > me to touch the Maintainer field? 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. Greetings - Fuddl
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part