Re: Horrific new levels of changelog abuse
Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> wrote:
>
>> If so, what is your objection to closing the same bug with the message
>> that "it has been fixed in verion x"?
>
> That does not document the change. If, for example, I have an application
> which required the uml_switch support in rootstrap, and so needed to specify
> a versioned dependency on the version implementing the feature, and the
> maintainer had written a useless changelog entry as you suggest, then I
> would not be able to look in the changelog and find out what version to
> depend on.
I totally agree that it should be documented in the Debian changelog. But
the reason for it to be there is because it's a Debian change. It's not
because that it happens to close a Debian bug.
As far as closing Debian bugs are concerned, saying that it is fixed in
version x is sufficient.
It looks like you still don't understand my position. As far as I'm
concerned, all Debian changes *must* be documented in debian/changelog
regardless of whether they happen to fix Debian bugs.
For example, if you add/remove dependencies from debian/control, then
that must be documented whether it was prompted by a bug report, or
just through routine maintainence.
That's why the changelog that started this thread is totally
unacceptable. If they were upstream changes, then they should have
been marked as such (they were not). If they were Debian changes,
then they must be documented clearly.
However, changes in a new upstream release do not need to be documented
in debian/changelog, even if they do happen to close bugs in the Debian
BTS.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Reply to: