[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: smarter way to differ architectures needed?

Brian May writes ("Re: smarter way to differ architectures needed?"):
> I think another limitation with the current BTS system is the assumption
> that all bugs reports should go to the original maintainer - if the bug
> is because of a port to another system and/or architecture, I doubt
> the original maintainer is going to have a clue what to do with it,
> especially if it was ported by someone else.

In many cases the port will have been done automatically.  I think
that the source maintainer is the only person who is likely to be able
to debug most bugs.

> I don't know what to do about this though. Perhaps there needs to be a
> way to put the porters email address in bug reports by bug, so that the
> maintainer can contact the porter if required.

Perhaps bug should put in an Architecture: pseudo-header ?

> Note: According to the "Debian Developer's Reference", packages should
> be ported with "dpkg-buildpackage -B -mporter-email"; I suspect that
> some hurd porters have forgotten to include their E-Mail address,
> however I don't fully understand the details, so I might be out-of-date
> (ie looking at old packages) or just plain wrong. I am under the
> impression that the name of the porter should appear under the
> output of "dpkg -I <package>", as the Maintainer.

No, it shouldn't.  There should possibly be a new field, but
Maintainer is for the maintainer.


Reply to: