Re: ITO: LILO
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 11:35:28PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 12:05:52AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I'm not Adam but my own hope would be that if a bug is closed by
> > upstream then some note as to what has been fixed would appear in the
> > changelog - "Now correctly handles $THING", for example. This is much
> > more friendly and helpful to read in the changelog, particularly in
> > cases where there are several possible approaches to solving the problem.
>
> Yes I expect you would find that information in the upstream changelog -
> why would you expect to find it in the debian/changelog also?
You expect it...it might be in the upstream changelog, and it might not. It
might be buried in irrelevant details. Upstream changelogs are not
necessarily programmatically parseable. Upstream does not usually reference
Debian bugs. One of Debian's great strengths is in providing consistency
and integration for a wide variety of software.
Despite the protestations on this mailing list, it really takes very little
effort to do this right. Many maintainers do it already. As doogie said,
if the bug is titled correctly, that is enough information when the fix is
obvious:
* Closes: #123456 (capitalize Debian in description)
but when it isn't obvious, it is better to add a few words of explanation:
* New upstream version
- Includes an endian-agnostic MD5 routine
Closes: #123457 (complains about invalid checksum)
--
- mdz
Reply to: