On Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 11:58:38PM -0400, Steven R . Baker wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> I just adopted AfterStep, but ran into some problems with the
> adoption process. The previous AfterStep package packaged version
> 1.6.10, and the current (stable) version is 1.8.3. So, after speaking
> with the previous maintainer (a while ago) I packaged 1.8.3.
> When packaging 1.8.3, I ran into a few problems. Namely, the fact
> that the AfterStep source tree has changed so much since 1.6.10 that
> most of the debian control files were useless.
> So, I just created a new package. Should I have merged the
> changelogs into one, and made the packages look similar? I just
> received a message from someone commenting (although, I don't know if
> it was sarcastic or not) on the lack of a changelog for my AfterStep
> package.
> Some thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.
In short, yes. A history of what has happened with respects to the debian
package is important. a changelog entry of
* Completely reimplemented debian/* due to major upstream changes
or similar would be sufficient to explain things.
(My wording sucks.. dont use the above.)
--
Michael Beattie (mickyb@es.co.nz)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If NT is the answer, you didn't understand the question. (NB: Stolen sig)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debian GNU/Linux.... Ooohh You are missing out!
Attachment:
pgpWQucNjL7C2.pgp
Description: PGP signature