Re: ChangeLog format
Bill Mitchell writes:
> Horrible, etc. seems a bit harsh. I'm not rabid about the dchanges
> format (which, after all, wasn't my idea in the first place), but I
> don't think it's all that bad. I think having the dchanges tool
> available to syntax check it before uploading is a big plus if
> it's supposed to be machine-parsed after uploading. If the group
> wants to go to some other format, and someone is willing to field,
> document, and maintain a tool to support building and syntax-checking
> package announcements using that format, I'll retire dchanges(1) and
> switch with little or no complaint.
I like dchanges for the simple fact that it does the tiresome md5sum
and size of file work for me, and it's standardised many of the package
annoucements. If we switch to something else I'd want a similiar tool
to dchanges. I don't think dchanges output is that unreadable.
Dehydration - 34%, Recollection of previous evening - 2%, embarrassment
factor - 91%. Advise repair schedule:- off line for 36 hours, re-boot
startup disk, and replace head - wow, what a night!
-- Kryten in Red Dwarf `The Last Day'
Andrew Howell email@example.com
Perth, Western Australia firstname.lastname@example.org