On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 06:43:21PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 01:22:38AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 04:40:06PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 02:35:47PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote: > > > > On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, Joshua Kwan wrote: > > > > > Perhaps you should make another upload with a clearer changelog. > > > > > > > > No, this is wrong too. Uploads that don't actually change anything in the > > > > package, just to have something in the changelog, are wrong as well. > > > > > > I disagree. Documenting the changes made to a package is a very > > > important part of an upload. > > > > Fix the changelog in your local tree so that it properly documents the > > real history of the package, but there's no need to upload until > > something more important comes up. > So then the bug submitters never see the real reason the bug was closed, > apt-listchanges (presumably) suppresses the additions to the old > changelog entry so that anyone with the package installed never sees the > real entries... Plus, any maintainer clueless enough to write awful > changelog entries is very likely a negligent maintainer, and thus highly > unlikely to make an upload to fix "something more important" for many > months. Why is this an OK situation? Is this to work around gimped > architectures with broken autobuilders? The purpose of fixing the changelog is to *fix the changelog*, not to notify the bug submitter for the reason for the closure. The submitters should be notified of the reason for the closure manually, by emailing -submitter. The maintainer has already screwed up the use of the changelog bug-closing convenience; uploading another package for no other reason than to be able to use this convenience again is horribly broken. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature