Re: Accepted kaffe 1:1.1.1-1 (i386 source)

[Junichi Uekawa <dancer@netfort.gr.jp>]

> I certainly prefer it if the changelog tells how the bug was fixed.  This
> documents the difference between:
> 
>  * New upstream release
>    - Removed the entire subsystem which contained this bug (Closes: #xxx)
> 
>  * New upstream release
>    - Made the "foo" option create its file with sane permissions (Closes: #xxx)

I think there are two different kinds of bug-closing scenarios; and IMO,
having the bug title and the submitter information would be benefitial,
to get it edited to something useful.

1. A patch submitted through BTS which is directly applied :

 * Updated translation for ja.po
 From: Junichi Uekawa (closes: #xxxx)
 * Fix behavior of SIGSEGV handling
 From: Junichi Uekawa (closes: #xxxx)

2. A user report that did not contain a patch or anything that helped 
track down the problem, but at least the problem got fixed:

 * debian/rules: Removed unnecessary checks for environmental friendliness
 fixes "Package does not build from source on my dual-opteron machine"
 From: Junichi Uekawa (closes: #xxxx)
 * New upstream release
 implements "ACPI methods for controlling teapots"
 From: Junichi Uekawa (closes: #xxxx)



For the second case, the maintainer needs to perform some manual editing
to obtain a resonable changelog entry, as you suggest.


Just a random thought.


regards,
	junichi