On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 07:14:28AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> The contraddiction of all this tread, is that: if i make a change to a package
> i've to list my change in the package changelog (Matt Zimmerman, no one ever
> objected this). If i build a new upstream, i've to list each change in
> the upstream changelog that let me declare a bug as closed; change that does
> not refer to the Debian package (but to the original upstream), and that i did
> not applied as part of my package working (because it was applied from the
> upstream).
>
> To demostrate how much this issue is stupid, i'll make any one here happy by
> including the entire upstream changelog in changelog.Debian.gz, next time i'll
> build a new upstream.
Here's a suggestion for you. How about a simple changelog entry saying
what the bug was and that it was closed by the new upstream code? Here's
what I used in a recent xpdf upload, for example:
xpdf (2.02-1) unstable; urgency=low
* New upstream release
* Incorporated new Arabic language package 2003-feb-16
* Updated Hebrew language support to 2003-feb-16
* Upstream: fixed display problems in some PDFs (closes: #181076,
#144047, #167827, #176856, #180829)
* Upstream: fixed crash on find-next before find (closes: #172973)
* Upstream: fixed color handling in buttons (closes: #171398)
* Upstream: fixed crash if Ctrl-W pressed while file open (closes: #177698)
-- Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun, 30 Mar 2003 14:06:43 +1000
This is more informative than just
* New upstream release (closes: #n, #m, #i, #j)
and not really a lot of work. I started doing this after an earlier
version of this same discussion...
Comments on the above format welcome, btw.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
