Re: ITO: LILO
Hamish Moffatt <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 12:05:52AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Monday, August 5, 2002, at 11:37 PM, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>>> So what do you expect exactly - that a developer will diff the upstream
>>> code to describe exactly how the bug was fixed in excruciating detail in
>>> the debian/changelog?
>> I'm not Adam but my own hope would be that if a bug is closed by
>> upstream then some note as to what has been fixed would appear in the
>> changelog - "Now correctly handles $THING", for example. This is much
>> more friendly and helpful to read in the changelog, particularly in
>> cases where there are several possible approaches to solving the problem.
> Yes I expect you would find that information in the upstream changelog -
> why would you expect to find it in the debian/changelog also?
Because lots of upstreams changelog's don't do this job and are next
to useless for the end-user, they contain lots and lots and lots of
details, successfully hiding the important changes.
Take for example findutils:
2001-05-20 Kevin Dalley <firstname.lastname@example.org>
* Version 4.1.7
* lib/Makefile.am (EXTRA_DIST): add strcasecmp.c
* find/testsuite/Makefile.am (EXTRA_DIST): new tests:
find.gnu/name-opt.exp find.gnu/perm.exp find.gnu/perm.xo