Re: smarter way to differ architectures needed?
> What about these definitions:
>
> Maintainer:
> Person responsible for the source version from which this binary
> version was built.
> In case the upload includes source, must be equal to Compiled-By:.
> The value is taken from the latest changelog entry (just like
> it's already done for Maintainer:, but *not* overriden by the -m
> option of dpkg-genchanges).
> Note: This needs not always be the real maintainer of a package;
> for a NMU it's who's doing the NMU.
Eeks, no! I don't want the Maintainer: field to change on every NMU
-- that would be ghastly, especially if people think to use dpkg -s to
get in contact with the maintainer.
Uploader: has far fewer connotations about the passivity of the person
doing the build than Compiled-by:, and allows for both porters and
NMUs.
I feel that Maintainer: should *always* be the developer responsible
for the package, especially in the control file. It's obvious,
anyway, if an uploader has modified the code, as it will say something
like "NMU" in the changelog and will have source attached. I don't
think more indications are really necessary.
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. -*-
Reply to: