Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> Good point. Shall we mandate that all bug closures be adequately > >> documented in the ChangeLog? I would be quite happy with that.
> I do think bug closures be documented in the ChangeLog (I > shall attempt to do so from now on for every real bug that is closed > for my packages). I shall not upload for every item in my changelog. Like so? debhelper (4.1.48) unstable; urgency=low * Not adding ld.so.conf parsing code for libraries, if your library is not in a usual path, use the standard -X option to dh_makeshlibs to skip it. Closes: #122174 * No, I don't think that adding rm -rf /tmp to postinsts is a good idea. Closed: #201012 * Reasigned bugs #133949 and #123043 to dh-make, since dh_make is not in debhelper. When will people learn? * debhelper won't include a dh_installrootkit until I see more demand for such a program. Closes: #37337 * I fixed the "debhelper overwrites libc" bug back in 1999, why am I still getting reports about it? Sheesh. Closed: #393933, #209202, #384821 * Yes, debhelper and debconf do indeed have recursive build-depends. Deal. Closed: #197602 * In the last release I made a typo, and accidentially closed bug #196343, not #196344. I've reopened the former bug. Closes: #196344 * Trimmed the last 500k of the changelog; it was 90% of the entire package size since it recorded every dismissed feature request and dh-make bug for the past 6 years. * Fixed a typo in dh_python. Closes: #197679 -- Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:58:27 -0400 -- see shy jo
pgpw7OVNsQEkU.pgp
Description: PGP signature