Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 02:59:40PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: >> >> > > * New upstream version (Closes: #193497) > >> Is this a new sport in #d-d or something like that? I read that >> entry as "the new upstream version fixes the problem reported in >> #193497", and looking at the BTS that is exactly its meaning. > > But the problem is that you don't describe what was reported in > #193497. A entry that says:
So what? The *Debian* changelog is for Debian changes only. It's not there for listing upstream changes, copyright information, or who your favourite TV personality is. > * Closes: xxxx > > also says this version fixes a problem reported in #xxxx, but I think we > can all agree that's not an acceptable entry. I most strongly disagree. The practice of closing upstream bugs with the "New upstream version" message has always been common practice. > In this case, an entry that simply says: > > * New upstream version, fixes bashism in svsetup (Closes: #193497) > > would be much more informative and only take a few additional seconds > of your time to write. I find it puzzling why you'd so adamantly refuse > to do something so trivial that is yet so useful. Well if the maintainer wishes to include more information, we don't need to stop them. But we sure as hell shouldn't be forcing them to duplicate what is already in the upstream changelog. -- Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ ) Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
