Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I personally feel that adding new changelog "blocks" is okay but > editing old changelog blocks isn't okay, even if you are going to do a > subsequent build with a -v when you go back to unstable. I would > either close the bug manually or put an entry in the latest changelog > block with a parenthetical remark saying that bug was actually fixed > by version x.y-z. I feel that if you grab any old version of a > package, the changelog should look identical to the current changelog > after you remove all blocks whose date is later than the date of the > old version.
I generally agree, but does this really hold for experimental? And there's quite a benefit in having sensible, well-readable, comprehensive changelogs for people using stable (and looking at old versions). By the way, I think that correcting typos is okay (And in one occasion I removed the E-mail-address of a patch contributor who insisted on that to prevent spam, well, ...). Or similar to a typo, but more serious: I forgot to include the CVE number of a security issue I fixed in unstable, and I am going to add it in the next upload, so that it is clear when which CVE was fixed in sarge. [remarks on "forward-porting" of unstable changelogs to experimental,] [snipped because I agree] > I did not, however, update the changelog with the security team NMUs > made to the much older version in stable. I wouldn't do that, either. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
