Status of the debian-maintainer-field spec ?

[Michael Bienia]

On 2007-02-08 20:59:55 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> In the spec, a X-Original-Maintainer field is supposed to be used.  It
> seems that this is a mistake, since the current implementation uses
> Original-Maintainer (without X-).

The spec mentions X-Original-Maintainer but the announce mail [0]
mentions we should use Original-Maintainer.

> The current status in feisty is:
> 
> Binary packages:
> (A) Total packages: 21103
> (B) Packages without Original-Maintainer: 8621 (41%)
> (C) Packages without OM, but that's OK (@ubuntu.com): 1644 (8%)
> (D) (B) - (C) = packages to fix: 6977 (33%)

The buildds sets the OM for newly build packages for some time (IIRC
since the last quarter of edgy's development cycle). If those packages
in (D) didn't got rebuild since then it would explain why they have no
OM.

> Source packages (only the packages that were modified - version with
> ubuntuX - needs to be changed according to [1]):
> (A) Total packages: 12704
> (B) Packages without Original-Maintainer: 12704 (100%)
> (C) Packages without OM, but that's OK (not ubuntuX | @ubuntu.com): 10815 (85%)
> (D) (B) - (C) = packages to fix: 1889 (14%)

Setting Original-Mainter in debian/control doesn't result in an OM field
in the .dsc. Using X-OM doesn't work neither. In both cases a warning
about an unknown field is shown.
According to [1] we should use XS-Original-Maintainer to get
Original-Maintainer into the .dsc or XBS-OM if it should appear in .dsc
and the debs. But that doesn't work as expected: the .dsc file gets a
OM field but the deb gets a Xbs-OM field (according to my test in a
pbuilder).

I tried to get this resolved but didn't succeed yet.

Regards,
Michael

0: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2007-January/000235.html
1: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s5.7