El mié, 26-10-2011 a las 22:58 +0200, Fabian Groffen escribió: > On 26-10-2011 20:05:05 +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > Why don't we try to reach a consensus? Maybe we should be allowed to > > simply run echangelog (or whatever is used) to generate a message like: > > 26 Oct 2011; Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> -pangomm-2.26.3.ebuild > > > > And simply that > > > > Pros: > > - People refusing to add a message saying "Drop old" (or similar) could > > be happy with this, as no redundant information is required to be > > written in ChangeLog. > > - Users will still see that a package was removed, as it's indicated > > with "-" previous removed file. > > > > What do you think? > > You can see it has been removed, but you typically want to know why. > That's the idea of the ChangeLog file. > > Compare: > > old > > remove for security bug ... > > [this is a placeholder, please ignore] > > ^ > > Version bump > > Remove superseeded versions > > Drop due to dep on <libpng-1.5 > >
But most of times we simply remove old versions because they are old and, in that case, there is no need to add "Drop old" (as I am currently doing)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
