Re: smarter way to differ architectures needed?

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

> 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
wanted.

   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. -*-