On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 11:22 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: [...] > - A large part of the changelog is listing the changes in upstream > stable updates. These are mostly important changes, and we already try > to leave out those that are clearly irrelevant to Debian. Should we > continue to include these, or limit to those that address CVEs or > Debian bug reports?
There was one comment in favour of keeping these lists, and none for excluding them. I intend to continue including them. > - Would it make sense to split the changelog, leaving older entries > only in the source package? If so, should this be done manually, or > would it make sense to have dh_installchangelogs split at some age or > size limit? There seemed to be consensus that this would be reasonable, but differing opinions about how to do it. Several people mentioned Ubuntu's automatically truncated changelogs. These would require packaging a new tool and improving the handling of source changelogs on metadata.ftp-master.debian.org. I don't have time to work on this but someone else could. I've committed a manual change in the linux source package, moving all entries up to the stretch branch-point into changelog.old. This will mean that in a buster installation the changelog will include all changes since stretch. > - Does it make sense to compress changelogs with xz? For src:linux, > this achieves about a 20-25% reduction over gzip. There was some support for this, but differing results for compression. It wasn't clear that the gain would be worth it. I don't have time to work on investigating this or proposing a policy change, but someone else could. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings All the simple programs have been written, and all the good names taken
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
