Hi all,
it seems to be consensus that one should generally not "correct" older
changelog entries, like adding (closes: #...) if it turns out later that
this bug had been closed by this release. I am wondering whether there
is an exception to this rule, namely packages in experimental. The
changelog of tetex-base in experimental looks like this:
tetex-base (2.99.7bla) experimental; urgency=low
* new upstream beta release ...
* some words on packaging internals
* the following bugs are closed by this new upstream release:
- ... (closes: ...)
- ... (closes: ...)
and so on. Now for most people, namely everybody not using experimental,
they will see this changelog entry only when I finally upload to
unstable with "dpkg-buildpackage -v 2.0.2c-whatever". For them, and for
the archives, it would be convenient to have the complete list of bugs
closed by this upload in the changelog.
However, there are some bugs that I didn't know they were fixed when I
did the upload, it only turned out later. Therefore putting a "closes"
into the changelog entry of a *later* beta release does not make sense,
and I wonder whether I shouldn't simply add them to this list in the
first experimental upload, although it's an older changelog entry.
What do you think - shouldn't I edit the list of closed bugs in this
first experimental changelog entry?
On a related note: If I do uploads of 2.0.2c to unstable while 2.99 or
3.0 is in experimental, shouldn't I copy the changelog entries to the
appropriate place in experimental's changelog, too? This is also kind of
"editing history"; however if I don't do it, the changes made to 2.0.2c
will be only documented in the changelog of the stable release, and if
there's some revision that never makes it to sarge, it will be lost
almost entirely (except for snapshot.debian.org or similar).
Comments?
Bye, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
