Hi Patrick,
> Well you are right in this point. But I seem to develope my packages in
> another way then you. Cause i only start a new changelog entry, if i
> really uploaded something through my sponsor to the archive.
I usually do it that way, too. But there are cases when I have to create
intermediate packages anyway, e.g. preparing a new major version which I'd
like to test at work before I consider it ready for upload... installing
something on 100+ computers is easier if you create .deb's and throw them
into a private repository - and I wouldn't mind increasing the version
number after each test cycle if the number of new changelog entries warrants
it.
If the point is that users shouldn't see changelog entries which they've
never seen the corresponding package version to, then we should start
merging all changes made during a number of uploads to experimental in
one single big blob when a new upload to unstable is made - the users of
unstable have never seen those experimental versions, so we have to
artificially make it look like they have never happened?
I, too, remember there was a quite strong opposition - but I'm still searching
for the thread.
(Besides, I wouldn't call the Debian changelog a user-exposed file - its
contents are often quite cryptic to the casual user ("updated po files"...
"rediffed patch foo and blorb, minor changes to work nicely with libbar"...),
and the more experienced can live with a few more interspersed numbers. ;) )
Regards,
Jan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature