Re: Bug#193497: marked as done (svtools: svsetup uses bashism "echo -e")
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> a tapoté :
> >> "Good sense" in this case has to do with the quality of one's work
> >> regarding a volunteer effort. If you do not believe in this idea,
> >> then I doubt your hand could be forced by a document.
>
> > If a document exist and say "well, most people here think things
> > should be done that way for these reasons", it defines the "common
> > sense".
>
> But it makes no claim to be exhaustive. Indeed, policy is
> there when a choice has to be made between equally good technical
> alternatives, or a framework has to be laid for inter package
> cooperation.
I agree.
>
> In this case, I have yet to see why providing users of the
> list-changes output a better idea of what has changed in the package
> is a technically inferior solution.
I think it's better to provide users a better idea of what has
changed in the package.
I would not be surprised to see in the policy a recommendation to add
in the changelog why a bug reported in the Debian BTS is closed by an
upstream new version.
It seems to be common sense to add this information - at least 5
persons here told that they expect this kind of information. But
apparently, some people still do not agree. They do not seems to find
it useful for themselves and assume, for this reason, they do
not have to care about it.
To me, the next step is a clear statement in the Debian policy about
that. Because changelogs must be coherent in Debian, and not
maintainer completely dependent.
IMHO, the fact that some users (including me) request the changes we
are talking about to be listed in the changelog is enough (it's not
real extra-work (2 min)).
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Reply to: