"Dmitry E. Oboukhov" <[email protected]> writes: > RA> Aie. Please don't do that. That implies that all the changes in > RA> 3.6.9+debian-1 are in 3.5.12+debian-1, but they aren't (in particular, all > RA> the upstream changes aren't). This will potentially confuse all sorts of > RA> things in Debian, not to mention any user trying to read the changelog.
> RA> The two branches of the package should have separate changelogs. > this is the *Debian* changelog, so I think it *must* contain all debian > uploads. It should contain all Debian uploads that led up to (were part of the upload sequence leading to) the version that the changelog is in. The newer upstream releases are not in that version. The version numbers in the changelog should be monotonically increasing, except for special cases like backports. > Now Debian contains iceweasel 3.5.12 (were 3.5.9, 3.5.10, 3.5.11). When > 3.6.* replaces 3.5.* debian changelog won't contain any records about a > few uploads which *were done*. That's correct, because you switched branches and the additional 3.5 upstream releases are not part of the package history of the 3.6 branch. > Many bugs were closed by them, but result changelog won't contain these > records/bugreport nubmers. For example: > http://packages.qa.debian.org/i/iceweasel/news/20100908T084904Z.html This is a problem with how you're managing your changelog, not a problem with the basic idea that I'm describing. If those bugs are fixed in both branches of the packaging, both the old upstream and the new upstream, then they should be mentioned in both corresponding changelogs. Then all the bug state will be properly maintained in both branches. Look, for example, at the openafs changelogs for the version in unstable and the version in experimental. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
