On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 09:52:18PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060820 12:12]: > > On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 11:26:30PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 09:38:45PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > > > I'm afraid I don't know apt-listchanges. > > > > > > Buggy as a june meadow and suboptimally maintained. Things can change > > > soon, as apt-listchanges has just gotten a new maintainer. > > > > Lack of support for this setup isn't a bug; NEWS.Debian has always been > > loosely defined as being just like the Debian changelog but with a different > > category of information. The Debian changelog has always corresponded to > > source packages, not binary packages, and so apt-listchanges has always > > treated it that way, and treats NEWS.Debian the same. > > Hm. Though I remember about NEWS.Debian being formated like changelog, I > cannot remember that NEWS.Debian is per source package.
It was not discussed, and apt-listchanges (are there any other tools which use this file?) has always used that interpretation. If I'm not mistaken, dh_installchangelogs defaults to copying the same NEWS.Debian file into each binary package, just as it does with changelog, so this was a reasonable assumption from my perspective. > There can be multiple cases when some information for one binary package > is important, but for another is useless. People reading NEWS.Debian > (and people read that usually from installed binary packages) should > only get information useful for them. Changelog is however read often in > changes-files, and also in the source file, so having only one is right. It sounds like perhaps it is time to standardize this in the policy manual. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
