Re: Debian changelog vs upstream changelog
Tony Houghton <email@example.com> writes:
> What should go in a Debian changelog compared to the upstream
Well now, there's “should” and there's “should”.
> (a) Confine it to "new upstream release", a list of any closed debian
> bugs and packaging changes?
Of the options you present, this seems the best interpretation of what
Debian policy requires:
4.4. Debian changelog: `debian/changelog'
Changes in the Debian version of the package should be briefly
explained in the Debian changelog file `debian/changelog'. This
includes modifications made in the Debian package compared to the
upstream one as well as other changes and updates to the package.
So that's the minimum required. I don't consider it sufficient, though.
> (b) As above plus a summary of the most important upstream changes?
This is what I do. Rationale: The Debian changelog, unlike the upstream
changelog, is available for all Debian packages using standard tools
*before* installing the package, which as a user is the time I most want
to see what has changed in a new release of a package.
Merely saying “New upstream version” in the Debian changelog is utterly
useless to the user for deciding whether they actually want that new
upstream version on the system.
\ “Science doesn't work by vote and it doesn't work by |
`\ authority.” —Richard Dawkins, _Big Mistake_ (The Guardian, |
_o__) 2006-12-27) |