On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 04:31:26PM +0200, Daniel Gröber wrote: > Hi Lucas, > d/changelog: > > lsm (1.0.21-1) unstable; urgency=medium > > . > > * New upstream release (Closes: #1041221) > > * Usrmerge compliance (Closes: #1054086) > > Could be more specific. "Use dh_installsystemd to install units" maybe? > > > * Package rename > > Use imperative in changelogs and be more specific: "Rename package to > 'foolsm' to stay consistent with upstream" or some such. > > > - Added transitional package for renaming process > > More specific please. I'd go with straight prose and not bullet-points > myself. Say: "The old 'lsm' package is now transitional and installs the > new 'foolsm' package. > > > - Debian package was modified after upstream project rename. > > I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me here? > > > * debian/watch updated > > * debian/patches/ cleaned out > > IMO these are implied. Ofc. we're going to do that when we update a package > in Debian so while these would make good git commits I don't think they > should be in d/changelog since that's mostly user-facing. > > Maybe that's just my git sensibilities showing and it's perfectly > appropriate to note this in d/changelog for the old dsc focused workflow? > Feel free to rebuttle this point. > d/changelog should reflect all changes made to the packaging, so if d/watch and d/patches are changed, it should be mentioned in d/changelog
However, the changelog should say "WHY" something has changed. Do "d/watch updated" should be improved to "updated d/watch due to $x" or like. Same for d/parchs: Explain the why - for example "patch abc.patch has been removed, applied upstream". -- tobi