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

Re: smarter way to differ architectures needed?

On Fri, Mar 12, 1999 at 12:15:55AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Ian Jackson wrote:
> > OK, how about this: we rename (in a phased manner) Maintainer (in
> > .changes) to Uploader.
> I definitely agree with this.
> > Also, we arrange for this new field to appear in the package control
> > file, if it is different from Maintainer.
> We risk another non-obvious name here: the uploader need not be the
> compiler. Take for example security uploads, where the package is
> autobuilded, but uploaded by someone from the security team. The concept
> is good, but the name Uploader would become confusing, which is why I
> suggested Compiled-by. It's probably not the best name, but it covers
> what it's inteded for (or at least what I intend for it to be intended
> for :).

How about using "Builder:"?  It means the same thing and is more
graceful-looking than "Compiled-by:".

G. Branden Robinson              |   "There is no gravity in space."
Debian GNU/Linux                 |   "Then how could astronauts walk around
branden@ecn.purdue.edu           |   on the Moon?"
cartoon.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |   "Because they were wearing heavy boots."

Attachment: pgp8cyRBFp9rb.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: