Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1171236 > unrolled thread
| Started by | David Bremner <bremner@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-10-09 13:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2023-10-13 03:30 +0200 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist
Bug#1053705: dpkg-dev: please use a different word than Maintainer from dpkg-parsechangelog David Bremner <bremner@debian.org> - 2023-10-09 13:10 +0200
Bug#1053705: dpkg-dev: please use a different word than Maintainer from dpkg-parsechangelog Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2023-10-13 03:30 +0200
| From | David Bremner <bremner@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-10-09 13:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Bug#1053705: dpkg-dev: please use a different word than Maintainer from dpkg-parsechangelog |
| Message-ID | <HmWj7-eBi0-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Package: dpkg-dev Version: 1.22.0 Severity: minor -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 The use of Maintainer in the output of dpkg-parsechangelog is confusing, because it suggests that dpkg-parsechangelog is reporting the Maintainer field from debian/control. I suggest Changed-By for consistency with changes files. - -- Package-specific info: - -- System Information: Debian Release: trixie/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 6.4.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/12 CPU threads; PREEMPT) Locale: LANG=en_CA.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_CA.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_CA:en Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled Versions of packages dpkg-dev depends on: ii binutils 2.41-5 ii bzip2 1.0.8-5+b1 ii libdpkg-perl 1.22.0 ii make 4.3-4.1 ii patch 2.7.6-7 ii perl 5.36.0-9 ii tar 1.34+dfsg-1.2 ii xz-utils 5.4.4-0.1 Versions of packages dpkg-dev recommends: ii build-essential 12.10 ii fakeroot 1.32.1-1 ii gcc [c-compiler] 4:13.2.0-1 ii gcc-12 [c-compiler] 12.3.0-9 ii gcc-13 [c-compiler] 13.2.0-4 ii gnupg 2.2.40-1.1 ii gpgv 2.2.40-1.1 ii libalgorithm-merge-perl 0.08-5 Versions of packages dpkg-dev suggests: ii debian-keyring 2023.05.26 - -- no debconf information -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEkiyHYXwaY0SiY6fqA0U5G1WqFSEFAmUj3PgACgkQA0U5G1Wq FSH3Vg/9FPpO2BQXc4poo1KmvBlRuq3jKVBSusG0IvASO7vYkomU3xvIZkPCfArk fHXOIwsFVsrF0nByyInAL65V9yMAJ8K89J0fJVB88xCoUCWolTFNSfUfyaUGXzIq /EAD1IUNO4qdM+urpWy0zkjRMz0K5o2mh7PslyvhHep1EuPIPSQpejDGUsic1WKn booDmq6gUY2vk3zqTSXEusY+Rjxy8OaxNp+q2fLw0z/4Tu4YMPpigwFdkoJYA8LK EmFpSvaAtNG7wkmr1AxeeziKs3DPGgqZqpjPu/XNy+/18VVSrvBI+qsB3WMVerzF a+5NoandSh0gjauChMgo9waGS2h3iNMpxRKwM9NBJQX6Aml0KZ4K75ONn1b5hyJa 9Cu3a/V8GGW5xSojqaqTM9rQGfxZDTMvcsOug4InspY8O1vJ334dMVHg0JneUKSB vMmBbnEvn25CYz5Gz2cu+xtuJCoAzJOMdLlrk9K0RA7fQJ0vmF8pwdOtREiEzDEK fKl8yrTlfdWjXB9B3DHITskDtthFqbQE+APOnmKfhJXWCjztjNOB+nEF27gj09yv UP9WU5zyEMvoyVnsEGyaVvrkTys83zay+1M7EdrXcZ/N4P5mDEAyO4UnTrb9caRy UGgSl+2iKwK4fqfxDQyCrYj8l4/6XrQj2QwNRJ3YgejSptw3tsM= =qZyc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-10-13 03:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <Hofa1-fqOz-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1171236 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Mon, 2023-10-09 at 07:59:05 -0300, David Bremner wrote: > Package: dpkg-dev > Version: 1.22.0 > Severity: minor > The use of Maintainer in the output of dpkg-parsechangelog is > confusing, because it suggests that dpkg-parsechangelog is reporting > the Maintainer field from debian/control. I suggest Changed-By for > consistency with changes files. While that might have perhaps been a better field name, this is now part of interfaces, both for the command line tool, and the perl modules. So the only way I can see this could be renamed, if desired, would be by introducing some kind of versioning for the output, which could not be the default anyway, so the confusion would linger around (or might be made worse). The naming is also used in the description of the debian/changelog format both in deb-changelog(5) and in the Debian Policy. In any case, for now, I'm thinking about queueing the attached documentation patch to try to clarify a bit things, and will ponder about a possible versioned output. Regards, Guillem
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.bugs.dist
csiph-web