Hi, On 30.07.2012 02:16, Russ Allbery wrote: > Correct. It's not an RC bug to not describe a change in the Debian > version of the package, just a normal bug. Yes. I think the confusion arises from the ambiguity. I think the "should" refers to the optional principle to describe changes, not to the existence of such a file. That's also what you are saying below. It can be read and misunderstood the way I did, however. > 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. Please do. Alternatively it may work to rephrase the sentence in 4.4 and make more explicit it refers to the contents of that file, not the existence of the file itself. > "Must" for the existing language is definitely wrong, since it would be > saying that it's an RC bug to miss describing a change to the package. I > don't think we want to go there. Indeed. That wasn't my intention either. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature