On 7 Apr 2005, at 00:18, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
Would it make much difference, because you're going to
debsign the package afterwards (you won't have your secret key
inside the chroot).
I'll just ignore DEBEMAIL='' in pbuilder then. Thank you anyway.
Regards,
Philipp Kern
PGP.sig
Description: This
Hi,
> > I'm not quite sure if it was -k or -m that was currently recommended
> > for uploading.
>
> It's -k, and not -m. You need to sign the resulting package with your
> own key, otherwise it would search for one with the sponsoree's email
> address in the secret keyring, which fails.
Would
On 6 Apr 2005, at 01:07, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
I'm not quite sure if it was -k or -m that was currently recommended
for uploading.
It's -k, and not -m. You need to sign the resulting package with your
own key, otherwise it would search for one with the sponsoree's email
address in the secret keyr
> DEBEMAIL=Maintainer Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If this was specified, dpkg-buildpackage command will be
> passed
> with the necessary sponsorship option -mMaintainer
> Name
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on building. Overwridden with --debemail
> c
On 5 Apr 2005, at 14:44, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
The DEBEMAIL value (which was just [EMAIL PROTECTED]) is copied
verbatim
into the Maintainer field and thus the package is marked as an NMU, as
the ``Maintainer and the ``Changed-By'' field differed. IMO it should
not mess with the first one.
Please s
> > 1. Are you complaining because you have a different value for DEBEMAIL
> > and
> > your Maintainer field and the package is marked as NMU?
>
> The DEBEMAIL value (which was just [EMAIL PROTECTED]) is copied verbatim
> into the Maintainer field and thus the package is marked as an NMU, as
>
On 5 Apr 2005, at 00:18, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
1. Are you complaining because you have a different value for DEBEMAIL
and
your Maintainer field and the package is marked as NMU?
The DEBEMAIL value (which was just [EMAIL PROTECTED]) is copied verbatim
into the Maintainer field and thus the package
Hi,
> Normally I think of DEBEMAIL as of a variable for all the Debian tools
> which use it when they need my email address, like for GPG keys or
> reportbug.
> But here it replaces the content of the maintainer field which clearly
> comes from ``debian/control''. Like this I am forced to deact
On 4 Apr 2005, at 01:43, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
pbuilder messes with package builds. I set DEBEMAIL in pbuilderrc to
my
d.o email address as I do in my environment. However ``dpkg-genchanges
[EMAIL PROTECTED]'' gets called to generate the .changes file for my
architecture. However this forces my e
Hi,
> pbuilder messes with package builds. I set DEBEMAIL in pbuilderrc to my
> d.o email address as I do in my environment. However ``dpkg-genchanges
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]'' gets called to generate the .changes file for my
> architecture. However this forces my email address into the maintainer
> f
Package: pbuilder
Version: 0.123
Severity: normal
pbuilder messes with package builds. I set DEBEMAIL in pbuilderrc to my
d.o email address as I do in my environment. However ``dpkg-genchanges
[EMAIL PROTECTED]'' gets called to generate the .changes file for my
architecture. However this forces my
11 matches
Mail list logo
