> 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
Previously Roman Hodek wrote:
> But there's still one drawback: The Compiled-By: field is only in the
> .changes file and not in the package files :-( Ok, we still can track
> down who uploaded what (via Guy's archive of .changes on master), but
> the user can't easily do that.
It would probably b
> 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:
[...]
> I haven't tested it, but I presume that the "-m" option overrides
> the value for "Maintainer", but the documentation is a bit unclear
> o
> A Compiled-by: field would be useful.
Yes (no matter what the exact name is...)
> I also still think the Maintainer: entry in a .changes file should
> be renamed..
If we have a Compiled-By: field, then Maintainer: can change its
semantics so that it needs no renaming anymore...
What about th
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 als
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, w
> 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 Maintai
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
8 matches
Mail list logo
