[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#683222: debian-policy: Policy section 4.4 is imprecise with respect to section 12.7



Le Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 05:16:16PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> 
> I think you've been confused into thinking that Policy 4.4 is about the
> presence of the file rather than its usage.  Policy doesn't say anything
> about the existence of the file in source packages right now.  This
> strikes me as obvious, which is probably why no one has bothered, but we
> can add a sentence somewhere saying that the file has to exist.

Hi all,

just to be sure, I went to the Lintian lab, and I did not see any source
package that did not contain a debian/changelog file. Therefore, we can
explicitely require its presence.

How about documenting changelogs in the same way as we document copyright
files:

 - In chapter 4, describing source packages, require their presence in
   debian/changelog.

 - In chapter 12, about documentation, provide the information about the format
   and the contents.

This is quite an extensive modification (it transfer all the description of the format
to chapter 12, but could be part of the restructuring
work for Policy 4.0.

Otherwise, how about something along these lines:

--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -1591,12 +1591,12 @@
       </sect>
 
       <sect id="dpkgchangelog">
-       <heading>Debian changelog: <file>debian/changelog</file></heading>
+       <heading>Debian changelog: <file>debian/changelog</file> (required)</heading>
 
        <p>
-         Changes in the Debian version of the package should be
+         Changes in the Debian Source package should be
          briefly explained in the Debian changelog file
-         <file>debian/changelog</file>.<footnote>
+         <file>debian/changelog</file>, which is required.<footnote>
             <p>
               Mistakes in changelogs are usually best rectified by
               making a new changelog entry rather than "rewriting


Cheers,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


Reply to: