Re: (non-)upstream changelog
Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> P.P.S: I'm taking care of this package since few months... under
>> previous maintainer, the upstream ChangeLog was still updated
> That's nicer, but I don't think it's worth a hunk in diff.gz (either
> as direct change or patch) for this.
What’s stopping one from shipping a debian/changelog.upstream and
using that instead? If you want to avoid duplicating content from the
old upstream ChangeLog, you can always use "cat" at build time.
On the other hand, I do agree it would be best for upstream to provide
a log with release notes in the distributed tarball, which would
benefit everyone. If current upstream is not the only author, that
might even be technically required by the GPL (but I am not a lawyer).