Re: smarter way to differ architectures needed?
> 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 Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk
Debian GNU/Linux Developer. firstname.lastname@example.org
-*- Finger email@example.com for my PGP public key. -*-