Re: building a sponsored package
Previously Colin Watson wrote: If this is your only rationale, it is spurious, as you're talking about Maintainer: in debian/control while I'm talking about Maintainer: in the .changes file. The two are *distinct*. They are not (any more), with the caveat you can override it using a -m option for dpkg-gencontrol. Wichert. -- _ / Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: building a sponsored package
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 12:05:16PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Colin Watson wrote: If this is your only rationale, it is spurious, as you're talking about Maintainer: in debian/control while I'm talking about Maintainer: in the .changes file. The two are *distinct*. They are not (any more), with the caveat you can override it using a -m option for dpkg-gencontrol. Yes, we'd like to know whether it's correct to do so for sponsored packages. (FWIW, for the half-dozen packages I've sponsored I've used -m, and both upload notifications and subsequent bug reports have gone to the respective correct places. Some people believe -e is better.) -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: building a sponsored package
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 07:30:53PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: Colin == Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Colin I think that would be appropriate. Colin Exactly what are the intended semantics of Maintainer: and Colin Changed-By: in the .changes file (not the .dsc)? In Colin particular, when sponsoring a package, which field in the Colin .changes should contain the name of the uploader and which Colin the name of the sponsored developer? Maintainer should contain the name of the NM applicant so he/she gets bugs. If this is your only rationale, it is spurious, as you're talking about Maintainer: in debian/control while I'm talking about Maintainer: in the .changes file. The two are *distinct*. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: building a sponsored package
Previously Colin Watson wrote: If this is your only rationale, it is spurious, as you're talking about Maintainer: in debian/control while I'm talking about Maintainer: in the .changes file. The two are *distinct*. They are not (any more), with the caveat you can override it using a -m option for dpkg-gencontrol. Wichert. -- _ / Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
Re: building a sponsored package
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 12:05:16PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Colin Watson wrote: If this is your only rationale, it is spurious, as you're talking about Maintainer: in debian/control while I'm talking about Maintainer: in the .changes file. The two are *distinct*. They are not (any more), with the caveat you can override it using a -m option for dpkg-gencontrol. Yes, we'd like to know whether it's correct to do so for sponsored packages. (FWIW, for the half-dozen packages I've sponsored I've used -m, and both upload notifications and subsequent bug reports have gone to the respective correct places. Some people believe -e is better.) -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
building a sponsored package
Is the correct way to build a sponsored package with just eg -mHamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] to dpkg-buildpackage or debuild? I get Changed-By: the sponsoree, and Maintainer: me in the .changes file as a result. That seems backwards. thanks Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: building a sponsored package
Try -e... On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 09:29:39PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] spake forth: Is the correct way to build a sponsored package with just eg -mHamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] to dpkg-buildpackage or debuild? I get Changed-By: the sponsoree, and Maintainer: me in the .changes file as a result. That seems backwards. -- Mike Markley [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 0x3B047084 7FC7 0DC0 EF31 DF83 7313 FE2B 77A8 F36A 3B04 7084 Immortality consists largely of boredom. - Zefrem Cochrane, Metamorphosis, stardate 3219.8 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: building a sponsored package
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 11:06:32AM -0500, Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] spake forth: eg -mHamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] to dpkg-buildpackage or debuild? I get Changed-By: the sponsoree, and Maintainer: me in the .changes file as a result. That seems backwards. I think that's correct. My understanding is that Maintainer: in the .changes essentially means the developer doing the upload. Changed-By: should always be the person who made the most recent changelog entry. I'm pretty sure the intent is that Maintainer: is the person primarily responsible for the package - developer or not. Changed-By: is for who did the last changelog entry, or someone who's otherwise uploading it but not the primary person of responsibility for the package - NMU's, sponsored uploads, etc. Hence, Changed-By: should be the sponsor, Maintainer: the sponsored developer. AIUI, anyway :). -- Mike Markley [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 0x3B047084 7FC7 0DC0 EF31 DF83 7313 FE2B 77A8 F36A 3B04 7084 Blast medicine anyway! We've learned to tie into every organ in the human body but one. The brain! The brain is what life is all about. - McCoy, The Menagerie, stardate 3012.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: building a sponsored package
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 12:20:20PM -0700, Mike Markley wrote: On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 11:06:32AM -0500, Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] spake forth: I get Changed-By: the sponsoree, and Maintainer: me in the .changes file as a result. That seems backwards. I think that's correct. My understanding is that Maintainer: in the .changes essentially means the developer doing the upload. Changed-By: should always be the person who made the most recent changelog entry. I'm pretty sure the intent is that Maintainer: is the person primarily responsible for the package - developer or not. I think that's Maintainer: in the control file (and the .dsc). It makes sense to me that the maintainer of a .dsc is the person primarily responsible for the package, while the maintainer of a .changes is the person responsible for uploading this particular build. This also matches the fact that porters typically upload with their name in the .changes Maintainer: field. However, I can see we aren't going to get anywhere with argument by repeated assertion. :) -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: building a sponsored package
I think that's Maintainer: in the control file (and the .dsc). It makes sense to me that the maintainer of a .dsc is the person primarily responsible for the package, while the maintainer of a .changes is the person responsible for uploading this particular build. This also The Maintainer schould always be the same, i think. Either someone maintains a package or he doesn't. matches the fact that porters typically upload with their name in the .changes Maintainer: field. Because they upload with the Architecture limited to what they uploaded. They are somehow the maintainer of the package for that specific architecture. for example Non-Maintainer-Uploads: the Maintainer shouldn't change - but the Changed-By: field has to get the Name of the Person doing the NMU. So i think that's straightforward. The Maintainer is responsible for the package, the Changed-by: responsible for his changes. More specific is the Maintainer the Contact for Requests about that package. And this is NOT the sponsor. Bugs should be adressed by the sponsored new maintainer themselves. Sponsors just review the maintainers work and do the upload. Greetings, Erich -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: building a sponsored package
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 08:40:29PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: However, I can see we aren't going to get anywhere with argument by repeated assertion. :) Do we need to take this to debian-devel, and find out what the dpkg developers (Wichert, Adam etc) intended with the new field? Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: building a sponsored package
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 08:40:46AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 08:40:29PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: However, I can see we aren't going to get anywhere with argument by repeated assertion. :) Do we need to take this to debian-devel, and find out what the dpkg developers (Wichert, Adam etc) intended with the new field? I think that would be appropriate. Exactly what are the intended semantics of Maintainer: and Changed-By: in the .changes file (not the .dsc)? In particular, when sponsoring a package, which field in the .changes should contain the name of the uploader and which the name of the sponsored developer? -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: building a sponsored package
Colin == Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Colin I think that would be appropriate. Colin Exactly what are the intended semantics of Maintainer: and Colin Changed-By: in the .changes file (not the .dsc)? In Colin particular, when sponsoring a package, which field in the Colin .changes should contain the name of the uploader and which Colin the name of the sponsored developer? Maintainer should contain the name of the NM applicant so he/she gets bugs. changed-by should contain the name of the sponsor. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
building a sponsored package
Is the correct way to build a sponsored package with just eg -mHamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] to dpkg-buildpackage or debuild? I get Changed-By: the sponsoree, and Maintainer: me in the .changes file as a result. That seems backwards. thanks Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: building a sponsored package
Try -e... On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 09:29:39PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] spake forth: Is the correct way to build a sponsored package with just eg -mHamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] to dpkg-buildpackage or debuild? I get Changed-By: the sponsoree, and Maintainer: me in the .changes file as a result. That seems backwards. -- Mike Markley [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 0x3B047084 7FC7 0DC0 EF31 DF83 7313 FE2B 77A8 F36A 3B04 7084 Immortality consists largely of boredom. - Zefrem Cochrane, Metamorphosis, stardate 3219.8
Re: building a sponsored package
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 09:29:39PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Is the correct way to build a sponsored package with just eg -mHamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] to dpkg-buildpackage or debuild? I get Changed-By: the sponsoree, and Maintainer: me in the .changes file as a result. That seems backwards. I think that's correct. My understanding is that Maintainer: in the .changes essentially means the developer doing the upload. Changed-By: should always be the person who made the most recent changelog entry. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: building a sponsored package
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 11:06:32AM -0500, Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] spake forth: eg -mHamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] to dpkg-buildpackage or debuild? I get Changed-By: the sponsoree, and Maintainer: me in the .changes file as a result. That seems backwards. I think that's correct. My understanding is that Maintainer: in the .changes essentially means the developer doing the upload. Changed-By: should always be the person who made the most recent changelog entry. I'm pretty sure the intent is that Maintainer: is the person primarily responsible for the package - developer or not. Changed-By: is for who did the last changelog entry, or someone who's otherwise uploading it but not the primary person of responsibility for the package - NMU's, sponsored uploads, etc. Hence, Changed-By: should be the sponsor, Maintainer: the sponsored developer. AIUI, anyway :). -- Mike Markley [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 0x3B047084 7FC7 0DC0 EF31 DF83 7313 FE2B 77A8 F36A 3B04 7084 Blast medicine anyway! We've learned to tie into every organ in the human body but one. The brain! The brain is what life is all about. - McCoy, The Menagerie, stardate 3012.4
Re: building a sponsored package
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 12:20:20PM -0700, Mike Markley wrote: On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 11:06:32AM -0500, Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] spake forth: I get Changed-By: the sponsoree, and Maintainer: me in the .changes file as a result. That seems backwards. I think that's correct. My understanding is that Maintainer: in the .changes essentially means the developer doing the upload. Changed-By: should always be the person who made the most recent changelog entry. I'm pretty sure the intent is that Maintainer: is the person primarily responsible for the package - developer or not. I think that's Maintainer: in the control file (and the .dsc). It makes sense to me that the maintainer of a .dsc is the person primarily responsible for the package, while the maintainer of a .changes is the person responsible for uploading this particular build. This also matches the fact that porters typically upload with their name in the .changes Maintainer: field. However, I can see we aren't going to get anywhere with argument by repeated assertion. :) -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: building a sponsored package
I think that's Maintainer: in the control file (and the .dsc). It makes sense to me that the maintainer of a .dsc is the person primarily responsible for the package, while the maintainer of a .changes is the person responsible for uploading this particular build. This also The Maintainer schould always be the same, i think. Either someone maintains a package or he doesn't. matches the fact that porters typically upload with their name in the .changes Maintainer: field. Because they upload with the Architecture limited to what they uploaded. They are somehow the maintainer of the package for that specific architecture. for example Non-Maintainer-Uploads: the Maintainer shouldn't change - but the Changed-By: field has to get the Name of the Person doing the NMU. So i think that's straightforward. The Maintainer is responsible for the package, the Changed-by: responsible for his changes. More specific is the Maintainer the Contact for Requests about that package. And this is NOT the sponsor. Bugs should be adressed by the sponsored new maintainer themselves. Sponsors just review the maintainers work and do the upload. Greetings, Erich
Re: building a sponsored package
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 08:40:29PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: However, I can see we aren't going to get anywhere with argument by repeated assertion. :) Do we need to take this to debian-devel, and find out what the dpkg developers (Wichert, Adam etc) intended with the new field? Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: building a sponsored package
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 08:40:46AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 08:40:29PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: However, I can see we aren't going to get anywhere with argument by repeated assertion. :) Do we need to take this to debian-devel, and find out what the dpkg developers (Wichert, Adam etc) intended with the new field? I think that would be appropriate. Exactly what are the intended semantics of Maintainer: and Changed-By: in the .changes file (not the .dsc)? In particular, when sponsoring a package, which field in the .changes should contain the name of the uploader and which the name of the sponsored developer? -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: building a sponsored package
Colin == Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Colin I think that would be appropriate. Colin Exactly what are the intended semantics of Maintainer: and Colin Changed-By: in the .changes file (not the .dsc)? In Colin particular, when sponsoring a package, which field in the Colin .changes should contain the name of the uploader and which Colin the name of the sponsored developer? Maintainer should contain the name of the NM applicant so he/she gets bugs. changed-by should contain the name of the sponsor.
