Re: smarter way to differ architectures needed?

[Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk>]

> Wichert Akkerman writes ("Re: smarter way to differ architectures needed?"):
> > 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..
> 
> OK, how about this: we rename (in a phased manner) Maintainer (in
> .changes) to Uploader.  Also, we arrange for this new field to appear
> in the package control file, if it is different from Maintainer.

I would suggest retaining the Maintainer field, being a copy of the
Maintainer field in the control file, and introduce a new Uploader (or
whatever) field in the .changes.  In this way it is obvious to anyone
looking at the .changes file, e.g., on the -changes lists, that the
Maintainer and builder differ.

   Julian

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

  Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk
             Debian GNU/Linux Developer.  jdg@debian.org
       -*- Finger jdg@master.debian.org for my PGP public key. -*-