lilo: bad changelog entry violates Social Contract

[Lazarus Long <lazarus@overdue.ddts.net>]

Package: lilo
Version: 1:22.3.2-1

lilo (1:22.3.2-1) unstable; urgency=HIGH

  * New upstream version.
    Closes: #136757

 -- Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>  Sat,  3 Aug 2002 23:34:00 +0200

"WTF?  If someone files a wishlist bug about a new upstream version,
WHY would this qualify as urgency high?  (And ALL-CAPS for some reason
as well?)  Is the maintainer on crack?"

That's the thought process one might reasonably expect when seeing the
above via apt-listchanges (and therefore say a resounding NO WAY when
asked if you want to continue.)

That's the extent of the changelog entry, there is nothing whatsoever
about security mentioned, nothing about anything of high urgency.
Or is the maintainer talking about being high when he packaged this?

Why can't some people write a reasonable changelog entry?  What happened
to point 4 of the Social Contract?  I thought "the needs of our
users and the free-software community" was supposed to come before
developer-laziness.


-- 
Please (OpenPGP) encrypt all mail whenever possible. Request the following
Public Keys for Lazarus Long <lazarus@overdue.ddts.net>

  Type    Bits/KeyID    Fingerprint                   DSA KeyID: vvvv vvvv
ElGamal: 2048g/CCB09D64 8270 4B79 CB1E 433B 6214  64EB 9D58 28A9 E8B1 27F4