Re: smarter way to differ architectures needed?
Julian Gilbey wrote:
>> Previously Ian Jackson wrote:
>> > No, it shouldn't. There should possibly be a new field, but
>> > Maintainer is for the maintainer.
>> A Compiled-by: field would be useful. You can also use that to track
>> down who compiled the package for another architecture. I also still
>> think the Maintainer: entry in a .changes file should be renamed..
>There was a suggestion to rename the Maintainer: field to Uploader: in
>the .changes file; I would suggest actually having both in the
>.changes file, then dinstall could decide whether to close bugs or
>change their severity to fixed based on the content of the two
>fields. I have handwritten patches to dinstall and the dpkg-dev
>scripts to handle this change, which I could type up and mail if it's
I would also suggest fixing the documentation of "dpkg-buildpackage" so
that it is clear that the -m parameter only changes the Maintainer (or
Uploader if it is changed) in the .changes file (if this is the case);
what I have been told privately directly conflicts (IMHO) with the man
Use maintaineraddress as the name and email address
of the maintainer for this upload, rather than
using the information from the source tree's
changelog. This is understood by dpkg-buildpackage
I was under the impression that the new package would have the
maintainer field changed, but I have been told that is not
the case, and that it remains unchanged.
Brian May <firstname.lastname@example.org>