On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:42:52 +0200 Laurent Léonard <laurent@open-minds.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Is there a standard or a recommendation for the content of the changelog > file ? As long as you don't break things like parsechangelog and you do use tools like debchange to make it easy to retain the requirements for the format, you should then add sufficient detail that someone unfamiliar with the package can tell what you have done for each version and each change. > - Is it better to specify the modified file or not ? For example if I add a > build dependency, should I specify I added it to debian/control ? Yes - and why if it was added because of something you did rather than a new feature from upstream. (e.g. dpatch or quilt). > - Is it better to specify the file concerned by the change at the beginning of > the sentence before a ":" character ? Or included in the sentence ? That's an upstream changelog style. Typically, debian/changelog don't use that convention but some packages do. e.g. my emdebian-* packages often prefix the change with the file name being changed: $ dch -a Emdebian/Grip.pm ": added foo to grip_binary()." Also a good idea to use debcommit if you've got the debian files in some RCS. > - Is it better to group the changes by file and specify a sort of hierarchy > like this ? > * debian/control: > - Change 1. > - Change 2. You can do that, yes. > > - Is there an order for the changes (importance...) ? Not really, most times it is a case of using 'dch -a' and so the entries are added in chronological order. > - Is it better to end the sentence by a final point or not ? Personal taste. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/
Attachment:
pgpTJIl4vIb6J.pgp
Description: PGP signature