Re: smarter way to differ architectures needed?
> A Compiled-by: field would be useful.
Yes (no matter what the exact name is...)
> I also still think the Maintainer: entry in a .changes file should
> be renamed..
If we have a Compiled-By: field, then Maintainer: can change its
semantics so that it needs no renaming anymore...
What about these definitions:
Person responsible for the source version from which this binary
version was built.
In case the upload includes source, must be equal to Compiled-By:.
The value is taken from the latest changelog entry (just like
it's already done for Maintainer:, but *not* overriden by the -m
option of dpkg-genchanges).
Note: This needs not always be the real maintainer of a package;
for a NMU it's who's doing the NMU.
Person who built and uploaded the files in this upload.
Can only be different from Maintainer: if no source included in
Also dinstall sends its replies (INSTALLED, REJECTED, ...) to this
The contents of this field come from the -m option to
dpkg-genchanges/dpkg-buildpackage. If -m is not specified, the
contents of Maintainer: are copied.
But there's still one drawback: The Compiled-By: field is only in the
.changes file and not in the package files :-( Ok, we still can track
down who uploaded what (via Guy's archive of .changes on master), but
the user can't easily do that. And it wouldn't be trivial to put this
information into packages, because the -m option to dpkg-buildpackage
is only passed on to dpkg-genchanges, but not to the debian/rules
binary stage, which generates the binary packages.