On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 05:49:32AM -0700, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> 
> It has been at least a couple years since DATE was discussed and for two 
> years I have been setting it to just normal date (%a %b %e %H:%M:%S %Z %Y) 
> format. This is the build/packaging time. Do you have any suggestion for 
> easier parsable format? Epoch, like DATE=1144412567, is not quickly human 
> readable.

Use either of the following formats from the HTTP RFC please :-)
(1) Sun, 06 Nov 1994 08:49:37 GMT (from RFC 822)
(2) Sun Nov  6 08:49:37 1994 (ANSI ctime(3) format)

> I have also been recording the MAINTAINER in mine for over two years. But 
> we don't include this on the README.html webpages. It seems like this was 
> discussed before. I like to know as a package user (even not pkgsrc) who 
> made the package (even if some non-human autobuild user). But I think 
> others didn't want this info. I can make this optional (off by default) or 
> just don't include it if this is the consensus.

MAINTAINER can change, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to record it
for years to follow :-)

Joerg