Bug#65764: changelog shouldn't be in the copyright file
Steve Greenland <stevegr@debian.org> wrote:
> It may be that we agree about the content of the README.Debian file: I
> think that what you're calling "a detailed list of changes to the
> upstream source" I would call "package.diff.gz" :-).
See the copyright file in my cpio package for an example of what I'm
talking about. Because a new upstream source hasn't been released since
1996, there are plenty of changes to document for this package.
> Ok, it begins to make sense to me to the content you describe belongs
> in one file. I'm not sure I like the name "copyright", but changing it
> at this point would be silly.
True. Perhaps "license" would have been better, but the point is moot.
> Well, I guess my point was that we try our best to make sure that what
> we deliver as package.orig.tar.gz is md5sum identical to the original
> upstream distribution, and my opinion was that we ought to do our best
> to treat the original copyright/license file the same. Given that most
> of our licenses are GPL/BSD/Artistic (and thus become references),
> or must be extracted from source code, then my concern is probably
> unfounded.
The license is still untouched in the source; therefore, I wouldn't
worry too much. That we also include it in the binary package and do
not alter its *content* should be sufficient.
> All of which leads to a resounding "whatever" with regard to this
> proposal...
Well, the purpose of the proposal is to give up the summary of
changes. My posts have only served to reveal some historical background
and clarify a few points.
If this proposal is accepted, we will be losing something, i.e., the
changelog.Debian file does not do quite the same job as the modification
summary in the copyright file. Nevertheless, Josip has a point.
Many packages, particularly newer ones, do not contain this list of
modifications. If I wanted to be mean, I'd say that it was due to
maintainer laziness, but that would probably be unfair. It's more due
to maintainer ignorance. Changing our policy to no longer require this
information is less work than fixing all of the broken packages.
- Brian
Reply to: