Ian Jackson wrote: >> I don't know what to do about this though. Perhaps there needs to be a >> way to put the porters email address in bug reports by bug, so that the >> maintainer can contact the porter if required. > >Perhaps bug should put in an Architecture: pseudo-header ?
Maybe - however, would you be always be able to identify the porter from the architecture? IMHO, the porter could be anyone.. >> Note: According to the "Debian Developer's Reference", packages should >> be ported with "dpkg-buildpackage -B -mporter-email"; I suspect that >> some hurd porters have forgotten to include their E-Mail address, >> however I don't fully understand the details, so I might be out-of-date >> (ie looking at old packages) or just plain wrong. I am under the >> impression that the name of the porter should appear under the >> output of "dpkg -I <package>", as the Maintainer. > >No, it shouldn't. There should possibly be a new field, but >Maintainer is for the maintainer. Is there a mistake in the "Debian Developer's Reference"???? I must admit, I find it surprising, a new field would be better. Here is an extract: 8.2 Guidelines for Porter Uploads [...] The way to invoke dpkg-buildpackage is as dpkg-buildpackage -B -mporter-email. Of course, set porter-email to your email address. This will do a binary-only build of only the architecture-dependant portions of the package, using the `binary-arch' target in debian/rules. I haven't tested it, but I presume that the "-m" option overrides the value for "Maintainer", but the documentation is a bit unclear on this. Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
