Re: [Fwd: [Pkg-ocaml-maint-commits] [SCM] libfuse-ocaml packaging branch, debian, updated. debian/0.2-1-1-g0b81018]
Sylvain Le Gall <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On 30-05-2009, Goswin von Brederlow <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Mehdi Dogguy <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>> Is this really necessary?
>>> debian/changelog should only talk about packaging changes and not upstream
>>> ones (ok maybe one sentence if there is an important change).
>>> Changes related to upstream should be present in upstream's changelog
>>> installed in /usr/share/doc/
>>> Am I mistaken?
>> If it weren't for the Pkg-ocaml-maint policy that all packages are to
>> be debian packages this would be a native package. It is bad enough
>> the source is split between 2 git repositories. I'm not going to split
>> changelogs as well. Otherwise the debian changelog would only say "new
>> upstream version" on verry nearly every release.
> Which is fine ! Most other packages only add "New upstream version" ;-)
> You could however format it, this way:
> * New upstream version:
> * upstream-change
> * another-upstream-change
> * ...
> I think this way is acceptable for Debian changelog format, if you keep
> upstream-change only to really important one (e.g. one that close a
> Sylvain Le Gall
I will certainly tidy up the entry before a release. This is just
bookkeping of what changed so I don't forget to mention anything
My normal workflow is that I use the same message for the changelog
and the git commit so the changelog gets verry verbose. Then for a
release I trimm it down to what users might need to know.