Hi, There is currently no way to determine who compiled a deb if it wasn't the maintainer (e.g. the vast majority of non-i386 uploads)[1]. IMHO, it'd be very helpful to have this information for trying to track down problems with packages which weren't compiled by the maintainer.
I think the Right solution would be to alter dpkg-buildpackage to have it include this information in the deb and .changes file, and to use the value of this new field to sign the .changes file with. This would leave the Maintainer: field intact in the .changes file (non-i386 builders wouldn't need to use -m"foo" anymore), and provide the info required without the kludgey hack I'm about to suggest. Suggestion: all arch-only uploaders hack (I would strongly suggest by way of a script) debian/control of packages they're building, adding a line like this (obviously, using their name, not mine) to the top of debian/control: |XBC-Builder: James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> When this is done, dpkg -I on a deb shows: |22:47:[EMAIL PROTECTED]| ~/temp $dpkg -I leave*.deb | new debian package, version 2.0. | size 6618 bytes: control archive= 476 bytes. | 528 bytes, 14 lines control | Package: leave | Version: 1.6-1 | Section: utils | Priority: optional | Architecture: i386 | Depends: libc6 | Installed-Size: 19 | Maintainer: Some Maintainer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Description: Remind you when you have to leave | Leave waits until the specified time, then reminds you that you have | to leave. You are reminded 5 minutes and 1 minute before the actual | time, at the time, and every minute thereafter. When you log off, | leave exits just before it would have printed the next message. | builder: James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^[2] What do y'all think? It's a quick'n'easy hack to existing auto-build scripts that will work with 99% of packages[3] and solves the problem most of the time. As I say, it's not the best solution, but it's the easiest to implement right now. Any objections? Any suggestions for a field name other than "Builder"? "Compiler"? "Arch-Compiler"? "Uploader"? [1] One could refer to a debian-devel-changes archive, but I think this is somewhat sub-optimal as a ``solution''. [2] I would like that to be "Builder", but I can't seem to convince dpkg-deb to do it. [3] It will fail on packages which do strange things with debian/control (like produce it from a debian/control.in), but those are few and far between, and can be compensated for. -- James -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
