Re: Documenting new upstream version in ‘debian/changelog’ (was: Uploaded)
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
> Adeodato Simó <email@example.com> writes:
> > I hope you’ll agree that’s more useful for the person reading
> > the changelog, and it only takes a bit more effort. No need to
> > retroactively edit the changelog, though.
The main reason to do this is because this is what the bug submitters
get when their bug has been closed.
> I wholeheartedly agree with this, and would go further: even if
> there are no Debian BTS reports to close, you should *still* give
> the highlights of a new upstream version in the ‘debian/changelog’.
It's perfectly fine if people do this, but it's not necessary to waste
the time to document upstream changes which don't fix Debian bugs. The
upstream changelog is there for a reason and duplicating information
only serves to bloat the changelog.
While #77375 is marked wontfix, it's not really an excuse to require
documenting upstream changes in the Debain changelog. Things that want
to show (or people who want to know about) upstream changes need to
show the upstream changelog.
No amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free
[...] You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.
-- Robert Heinlein _Revolt in 2010_ p54