Re: smarter way to differ architectures needed?

[Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>]

Julian Gilbey wrote:
>> 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.

I would also suggest fixing the documentation of "dpkg-buildpackage" so
that it is clear that the -m parameter only changes the Maintainer (or
Uploader if it is changed) in the .changes file (if this is the case);
what I have been told privately directly conflicts (IMHO) with the man
page:

       -mmaintaineraddress
              Use maintaineraddress as the name and email address
              of the maintainer  for  this  upload,  rather  than
              using   the  information  from  the  source  tree's
              changelog.  This is understood by dpkg-buildpackage
              and dpkg-genchanges.

I was under the impression that the new package would have the
maintainer field changed, but I have been told that is not
the case, and that it remains unchanged.

Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>