Brian May writes ("Re: smarter way to differ architectures needed?"):
> I think another limitation with the current BTS system is the assumption
> that all bugs reports should go to the original maintainer - if the bug
> is because of a port to another system and/or architecture, I doubt
> the original maintainer is going to have a clue what to do with it,
> especially if it was ported by someone else.In many cases the port will have been done automatically. I think that the source maintainer is the only person who is likely to be able to debug most bugs. > 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 ? > 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 however I don't fully understand the details, so I might be out-of-date 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. Ian.
