Re: Debian changelog vs upstream changelog

[Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>]

Tony Houghton <h@realh.co.uk> writes:

> What should go in a Debian changelog compared to the upstream
> changelog?

Well now, there's “should” and there's “should”.

> (a) Confine it to "new upstream release", a list of any closed debian
> bugs and packaging changes?

Of the options you present, this seems the best interpretation of what
Debian policy requires:

=====
4.4. Debian changelog: `debian/changelog'
-----------------------------------------

     Changes in the Debian version of the package should be briefly
     explained in the Debian changelog file `debian/changelog'. This
     includes modifications made in the Debian package compared to the
     upstream one as well as other changes and updates to the package.
     […]
=====

So that's the minimum required. I don't consider it sufficient, though.

> (b) As above plus a summary of the most important upstream changes?

This is what I do. Rationale: The Debian changelog, unlike the upstream
changelog, is available for all Debian packages using standard tools
*before* installing the package, which as a user is the time I most want
to see what has changed in a new release of a package.

Merely saying “New upstream version” in the Debian changelog is utterly
useless to the user for deciding whether they actually want that new
upstream version on the system.

-- 
 \                “Science doesn't work by vote and it doesn't work by |
  `\        authority.” —Richard Dawkins, _Big Mistake_ (The Guardian, |
_o__)                                                      2006-12-27) |
Ben Finney