[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#344947: kdm: NEWS file not displayed on upgrade



On Thu, 2005-12-29 at 22:47 -0500, Christopher Martin wrote:
> tags 344947 pending
> stop
> 
> On Tuesday 27 December 2005 15:35, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > Package: kdm
> > Version: 4:3.4.2-4
> > Severity: normal
> >
> > I recently upgraded from 3.3 to 3.4 in testing.  There is a
> > NEWS.Debian entry about KDM (and some other things), but it was not
> > displayed.  I have enables apt-listchanges, and in the same upgrade I
> > did get NEWS items about other packages.
> >
> > I've seen this with other packages, and it is usually the result of
> > some misformatting of the entry, which is supposed to follow the same
> > format as the changelogs.  The format looks OK to me, but perhaps the
> > problem is that the line identifying the version names kdebase rather
> > than kdm as the package.  Since the NEWS.Debian file was installed
> > under /usr/share/doc/kdm/ and not under /usr/share/doc/kdebase/,
> > perhaps that is causing the confusion.
> >
> > This would be good to fix, as displaying the appropriate NEWS items is
> > the way to put critical upgrade information where people will have
> > trouble missing it.
> 
> Quite right.
> 
> It seems that apt-listchanges works if the NEWS is installed in all binary 
> packages from a given source, so I've made the necessary packagine changes 
> (which will be present in the next upload). Many packages also ship their 
> NEWS this way, so it's hardly without precedent.
> 
> Cheers,
> Christopher Martin
Thanks for fixing that.  I wonder if this merits a bug or wishlist
against apt-listchanges.  Granted that the "ship NEWS with all packages"
is common, it still seems reasonable to have binary packages ship
individual NEWS files and have apt-listchanges report them rather than
ignore them.  In the present case, somebody can have KDE without KDM;
notifying such a person about changes to KDM is at best a waste and at
worst a source of possible confusion.

Ross





Reply to: