Hello Andreas, On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Andreas Tille <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think it is reasonable to fail with a warning. I'm not fully sure > whether we finally really need the * start/end automatically injected > changes * markers - we could agree upon making this list always the last > changelog entry and if it starts with some defined keyword it should be > possible to detect some previous entry which needs to be replaced or if > we should just add the entry. For the moment I'll leave the decision > about using the markers or not to you in how far you consider this a > safe way of coding. > > Yes you are right. The markers are not needed. I changed the changelogentry rule in the Makefile. I did the opposite for the moment(oups my bad I did not read again the mail since the morning) , I add the changelog entry first and it finishes with a defined keyword, using that I can replace in case it already exists(I can revert it tomorrow)
Regarding the missing JSON files which means we can not really create > the changes record at all I'd vote for a failure. OK, it works that way and in case of failure it prints a message mentioning the missing JSON. > Please remember that for a new Blend no such entry is possible and that > the > check should pass if there is only one release of the Blends metapackages. > > Thanks for mentioning that, I had not included such a check, now it works that way :-) > > Also there is still one thing left(I forgot about that while I was at > > debconf). We should ask debian-edu people if they need the packages.txt / > > avoidpackages.txt to be stored in orig.tar.gz(should I send an email into > > this list?) > > It might make sense to bring this topic up in a separate mail and also > CC [email protected]. > Yes I sent a mail. Petter's answer fully covered my question :-) Kind regards Emmanouil
