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

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
              and dpkg-genchanges.

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 <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>

Reply to: