On Wednesday 12 April 2006 15:36, Frank Küster wrote: > Keith Edmunds <keith@midnighthax.com> wrote: > > Frank Küster wrote: > >> But anyway, for the third category, it would be nice to have a rationale > >> "why you might want this backport". > > > > Isn't that the purpose of the changelog? No one else can know why YOU > > might want to install a given backport, but the changelog will tell you > > what has, er, changed and you can decide for yourself. > > > >From the original mail by Steffen: > > ,---- > > | For instance the -v option of dpkg-buildpackage is > | very useful and should be a standard for backporters, to reflect the > | changes. > > `---- > > If that would be too long, it might make sense to add a > backport-specific text on top of the newest changelog. And it would be > great if one could look at this even before installing it (and without > looking up the testing version on p.d.o). But "* new upstream release" doesn't make it clear, what's realy changing there ... and this statement you can find often in the changelog entries. Okay, you might be looking into upstream changelog, but sometimes these are huge once and bad to read. :/ With kind regards, Jan. -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GIT d-- s+: a- C+++ UL++++ P+ L+++ E- W+++ N+++ o++ K++ w--- O M V- PS PE Y++ PGP++ t-- 5 X R tv- b+ DI- D++ G++ e++ h-- r+++ y+++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Attachment:
pgpCLse7PiaeZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature