Bug#1064297: RFS: foolsm/1.0.21-1 -- Link connectivity monitor tool
On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 04:31:26PM +0200, Daniel Gröber wrote:
> Hi Lucas,
> d/changelog:
> > lsm (1.0.21-1) unstable; urgency=medium
> > .
> > * New upstream release (Closes: #1041221)
> > * Usrmerge compliance (Closes: #1054086)
>
> Could be more specific. "Use dh_installsystemd to install units" maybe?
>
> > * Package rename
>
> Use imperative in changelogs and be more specific: "Rename package to
> 'foolsm' to stay consistent with upstream" or some such.
>
> > - Added transitional package for renaming process
>
> More specific please. I'd go with straight prose and not bullet-points
> myself. Say: "The old 'lsm' package is now transitional and installs the
> new 'foolsm' package.
>
> > - Debian package was modified after upstream project rename.
>
> I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me here?
>
> > * debian/watch updated
> > * debian/patches/ cleaned out
>
> IMO these are implied. Ofc. we're going to do that when we update a package
> in Debian so while these would make good git commits I don't think they
> should be in d/changelog since that's mostly user-facing.
>
> Maybe that's just my git sensibilities showing and it's perfectly
> appropriate to note this in d/changelog for the old dsc focused workflow?
> Feel free to rebuttle this point.
>
d/changelog should reflect all changes made to the packaging, so if
d/watch and d/patches are changed, it should be mentioned in d/changelog
However, the changelog should say "WHY" something has changed.
Do "d/watch updated" should be improved to "updated d/watch due to $x"
or like.
Same for d/parchs: Explain the why - for example "patch abc.patch has
been removed, applied upstream".
--
tobi
Reply to: