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

[Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>]

Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > If I report "segmentation fault in ls", I--as a user of ls, not a
> > > developer--couldn't care less about why it was segfaulting or how the
> > > bug was fixed; I only care that it's been fixed.  If a developer wants
> > > to spend their limited time researching how the bug was fixed and
> > > summarizing it in a changelog, great, but it's certainly not something I'd
> > > expect everyone to do.
> > 
> > It's not about summarizing how the bug was fixed.  It's about summarizing the
> > bug *itself* in the changelog.
> 
> 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)

See

manpages (1.58-1) unstable; urgency=low

[..]
  * New upstream source (1.58) (closes: Bug#175564, Bug#175287)
    [..]
    . Updated deprecation information on getipnodebyname(3) (closes
      Bug#183112, Bug#176709, Bug#157746, Bug#152780)
    . Updated realpath(3) now warns that MAXPATHLEN may not exist (closes:
      Bug#152136)
    . Upstream added links for modfl(3) and modff(3) (partially fixes:
      Bug#17872)
    . Upstream added undocumented(2) (closes: Bug#149397)
    [..]

I hope this reflects good packaging practice.

Regards,

	Joey

-- 
If you come from outside of Finland, you live in wrong country.
	-- motd of irc.funet.fi

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.