Re: libgtk2.0-0: changelog.Debian.gz is not an upstream changelog

[Christian Marillat]

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On 17 Apr 2006, Christian Marillat spake thusly:
>
>> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

[...]

>> A copy and paste from the NEW file is certainly useless.
>
> If the NEW file provides information relevant to an end user
>  reading the output of apt-listchanges, and helps them decide if they
>  want to upgrade or not, it is not useless.

In my bug report the 19 lines aren't relevant (like typo in configure)
for a end user. It is the purpose of my bug report.

Christian


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libgtk2.0-0: changelog.Debian.gz is not an upstream changelog

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 17 Apr 2006, Christian Marillat spake thusly:

> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On 16 Apr 2006, Christian Marillat uttered the following:
>>
>>> Here is the relevant policy :
>>>
>>> , | Changes in the Debian version of the package should be
>>> briefly  explained in the Debian changelog file
>>> `debian/changelog'.[1] This  includes modifications made in the
>>> Debian package compared to the  upstream one as well as other
>>> changes and updates to the package. [2]
>>
>> So changes made in packaging are relevant, as well as "other"
>> changes -- which caninclude significant changes upstream.  The
>> bottom line is not one of NIH -- the changelog should contain
>> enough information for the target audience to decide whether or not
>> to install the upgrade.
>
> A copy and paste from the NEW file is certainly useless.

If the NEW file provides information relevant to an end user
 reading the output of apt-listchanges, and helps them decide if they
 want to upgrade or not, it is not useless.

manoj
-- 
"Sudden de-compression Sucks!" Dennis Robert Gorrie,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libgtk2.0-0: changelog.Debian.gz is not an upstream changelog

[Christian Marillat]

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On 16 Apr 2006, Christian Marillat uttered the following:
>
>> Here is the relevant policy :
>>
>> , | Changes in the Debian version of the package should be
>> briefly  explained in the Debian changelog file
>> `debian/changelog'.[1] This  includes modifications made in the
>> Debian package compared to the  upstream one as well as other
>> changes and updates to the package. [2]
>
> So changes made in packaging are relevant, as well as "other"
>  changes -- which caninclude significant changes upstream.  The bottom
>  line is not one of NIH -- the changelog should contain enough
>  information for the target audience to decide whether or not to
>  install the upgrade.

A copy and paste from the NEW file is certainly useless.

The Debian changelog :

,
|   * New upstream version:
| Bugs fixed:
| - Expander disclosure button is too small
| - gtk_image_clear doesn't cause redraw
| - typo in configure.in yields suspicious warning
| - gtk_icon_view_set_cursor causes Segmentation fault
| - garbage output of --help in non UTF-8 locale
| - GtkNotebook does not destroy its children on destroy()
| - TreeView DnD between-row highlight colo
| - Gtk-Criticals occur when scrolling a text_view that is not realized
| - Hidden menubar still activates submenus with kbd
| - GtkTreeItem broken 
| -  Clean up button press handling (use one-grab-op-at-a-time pattern)   
| - broken scrolling when selecting
| - GTK+ File-chooser dialog crashes
| - Nautilus crashes when dragging icons to another screen
| - mixed line separators confuse gtk_text_iter_ends_line
| - Textview child is covered by window border
| - gdk_pixbuf_loader_new_with_type(): What image types are allowed? 
| - Missing progress bar label
| - Fix a problem which caused grab-notify signal to be missed in some cases
`

And here the NEW entries for this release :

,
|  325699 Expander disclosure button is too small   [Brad Taylor]
|  334657 gtk_image_clear doesn't cause redraw
|  334774 typo in configure.in yields suspicious 
| warning   [Peter Breitenlohner]
|  335001 gtk_icon_view_set_cursor causes 
| Segmentation fault [Emmanuel Rodriguez]
|  335129 garbage output of --help in non UTF-8 locale [Christian Persch]
|  319032 GtkNotebook does not destroy its children 
| on destroy()   [Yevgen Muntyan]
|  334906 TreeView DnD between-row highlight color [Ian McDonald]
|  335717 Gtk-Criticals occur when scrolling a text_view 
| that is not realized   [Nicolas Setton]
|  336200 Hidden menubar still activates submenus with kbd
|[Bastian Nocera]
|  336254 GtkTreeItem broken  [Sven Herzberg]
|  74620  Clean up button press handling (use 
| one-grab-op-at-a-time pattern)[Li Yuan]
|  323862 broken scrolling when selecting [Benjamin Berg]
|  330617 GTK+ File-chooser dialog crashes
|  325751 Nautilus crashes when dragging icons to 
| another screen   [Hylke van der Schaaf]
|  337022 mixed line separators confuse 
| gtk_text_iter_ends_line [Paolo Borelli]
|  336796 Textview child is covered by window border [Yevgen Muntyan]
|  335536 gdk_pixbuf_loader_new_with_type(): 
| What image types are allowed?  [Murray Cumming]
|  336645 Missing progress bar label   [Stanislav Brabec]
| Fix a problem which caused grab-notify 
| signal to be missed in some cases [Matthias Clasen]
`

Christian


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libgtk2.0-0: changelog.Debian.gz is not an upstream changelog

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 16 Apr 2006, Christian Marillat uttered the following:

> Here is the relevant policy :
>
> , | Changes in the Debian version of the package should be
> briefly  explained in the Debian changelog file
> `debian/changelog'.[1] This  includes modifications made in the
> Debian package compared to the  upstream one as well as other
> changes and updates to the package. [2]

So changes made in packaging are relevant, as well as "other"
 changes -- which caninclude significant changes upstream.  The bottom
 line is not one of NIH -- the changelog should contain enough
 information for the target audience to decide whether or not to
 install the upgrade.

Changes made in new versions certainly affect my decisions on
 whether or not I wan the new packages, based on materiel
 provided by apt-listchanges.

manoj
-- 
If we don't survive, we don't do anything else. John Sinclair
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libgtk2.0-0: changelog.Debian.gz is not an upstream changelog

[Mike Hommey]

On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 12:22:14PM +0300, Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 12:02:42PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote:
> > Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > * Christian Marillat:
> > >> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > >> Where are you reading that ?
> > >
> > > An upstream change is a change to the Debian package, too, and listing
> > > them is expressly allowed under the "other changes" option.
> > 
> > I'm sorry but no. Read again. The Debian changelog is for Debian changes
> > not upstream. For that we have a changelog file and a NEW file.
> > 
> >   Changes in the Debian version of the package should be briefly
> >   explained in the Debian changelog file `debian/changelog'.[1] This
> >   includes modifications made in the Debian package compared to the
> >   upstream one as well as other changes and updates to the package.
> 
> Does it say that everything else is specifically excluded?  Do you
> really have nothing better to do with your life than argue semantics
> about an ambiguous sentence[0].
> 
> Please get off this list and do something more productive with your
> time.

... like dealing with his own bugs in a proper way.

Mike


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libgtk2.0-0: changelog.Debian.gz is not an upstream changelog

[Christian Marillat]

Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

R> On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 12:02:42PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote:
>> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > * Christian Marillat:
>> >> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> >> Where are you reading that ?
>> >
>> > An upstream change is a change to the Debian package, too, and listing
>> > them is expressly allowed under the "other changes" option.
>> 
>> I'm sorry but no. Read again. The Debian changelog is for Debian changes
>> not upstream. For that we have a changelog file and a NEW file.
>> 
>>   Changes in the Debian version of the package should be briefly
>>   explained in the Debian changelog file `debian/changelog'.[1] This
>>   includes modifications made in the Debian package compared to the
>>   upstream one as well as other changes and updates to the package.
>
> Does it say that everything else is specifically excluded?  Do you
> really have nothing better to do with your life than argue semantics
> about an ambiguous sentence[0].
>
> Please get off this list and do something more productive with your
> time.



Christian


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libgtk2.0-0: changelog.Debian.gz is not an upstream changelog

[Daniel Stone]

On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 12:02:42PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote:
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * Christian Marillat:
> >> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >> Where are you reading that ?
> >
> > An upstream change is a change to the Debian package, too, and listing
> > them is expressly allowed under the "other changes" option.
> 
> I'm sorry but no. Read again. The Debian changelog is for Debian changes
> not upstream. For that we have a changelog file and a NEW file.
> 
>   Changes in the Debian version of the package should be briefly
>   explained in the Debian changelog file `debian/changelog'.[1] This
>   includes modifications made in the Debian package compared to the
>   upstream one as well as other changes and updates to the package.

Does it say that everything else is specifically excluded?  Do you
really have nothing better to do with your life than argue semantics
about an ambiguous sentence[0].

Please get off this list and do something more productive with your
time.

[0]: One could well read it as, the Debian-specific changes, and also
 the upstream changes and anything else done to the package as a
 whole.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libgtk2.0-0: changelog.Debian.gz is not an upstream changelog

[Christian Marillat]

Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> * Christian Marillat:
>
>> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

[...]

>> Where are you reading that ?
>
> An upstream change is a change to the Debian package, too, and listing
> them is expressly allowed under the "other changes" option.

I'm sorry but no. Read again. The Debian changelog is for Debian changes
not upstream. For that we have a changelog file and a NEW file.

  Changes in the Debian version of the package should be briefly
  explained in the Debian changelog file `debian/changelog'.[1] This
  includes modifications made in the Debian package compared to the
  upstream one as well as other changes and updates to the package.


Christian


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libgtk2.0-0: changelog.Debian.gz is not an upstream changelog

[Florian Weimer]

* Russ Allbery:

> Accordingly, for my packages, I mention (as sub-bullets to the "* New
> upstream release" bullet) any upstream change that:
>
>  * Closes a Debian bug (and include the bug closer).
>
>  * Is a major feature enhancement or a major bug fix likely to be of
>interest to a substantial percentage of the users of the package.
>
>  * Is of special interest to Debian users.  (Requiring configuration
>changes or changes in the way the package is used in Debian that aren't
>quite worthy of a NEWS.Debian entry, for instance.)

Listing security bug with a "SECURITY:" tag would be a nice, too. 8-)

> I'm happy to take criticism on what I mention and don't mention, but I
> personally find Debian changelogs that never mention *any* details of why
> a new upstream version was packaged to be unhelpful and really inferior.

I agree completely.  Listing important upstream changes and fixed
Debian bugs is a service to our users.  It also helps with software
archaeology, in particular if upstream does not provide a concise or
well-ordered changelog.

> A pure "no upstream changes should be in the Debian changelog file" policy
> would break down in a number of places.  Some upstream changes I think
> everyone agrees should be listed there (such as CAN numbers for fixed
> security bugs).

It's "CVE names" nowadays. 8-)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libgtk2.0-0: changelog.Debian.gz is not an upstream changelog

[Russ Allbery]

Christian Marillat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Package: libgtk2.0-0
> Version: 2.8.17-1
> Severity: serious
> Justification: Policy 4.4

> Hi,

> Apparently you don't understand (or don't care), because this is the
> second time I file the same bug report (#344125), but as this package
> isn't a native package the upstream changelog should not be here.

While in this particular case I think the level of detail is possibly
overkill, the Debian changelog file is in a standard format (unlike
upstream) and therefore can be parsed and shown by automated tools from
apt-listchanges to the QA pages and the upload notifications.
Accordingly, I think it is the appropriate place to record any *important*
changes to the package, whether they were made upstream or by the Debian
package maintainer.  This particularly includes changes that someone
trying to analyze the history of supported major features or critical bugs
is likely to need to know about.

Accordingly, for my packages, I mention (as sub-bullets to the "* New
upstream release" bullet) any upstream change that:

 * Closes a Debian bug (and include the bug closer).

 * Is a major feature enhancement or a major bug fix likely to be of
   interest to a substantial percentage of the users of the package.

 * Is of special interest to Debian users.  (Requiring configuration
   changes or changes in the way the package is used in Debian that aren't
   quite worthy of a NEWS.Debian entry, for instance.)

I'm happy to take criticism on what I mention and don't mention, but I
personally find Debian changelogs that never mention *any* details of why
a new upstream version was packaged to be unhelpful and really inferior.
If one is packaging a new version that really has no Debian-related
changes or which is just fixing minor bugs or adding minor new features,
none of which of interest to the average user, a bare "New upstream
release" makes sense.  But I prefer to provide at least a line or two of
detail, and as long as one doesn't overdo it, there isn't much drawback.

A pure "no upstream changes should be in the Debian changelog file" policy
would break down in a number of places.  Some upstream changes I think
everyone agrees should be listed there (such as CAN numbers for fixed
security bugs).

Note: I use apt-listchanges and read the changelog deltas for every
package I upgrade on four different machines, so I am one of the people
who has to page through lengthy changelogs.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libgtk2.0-0: changelog.Debian.gz is not an upstream changelog

[Florian Weimer]

* Christian Marillat:

> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> * Christian Marillat:
>>
>>> Apparently you don't understand (or don't care), because this is the second
>>> time I file the same bug report (#344125), but as this package isn't a
>>> native package the upstream changelog should not be here.
>>
>> Accoridng to Policy section 4.4, it's okay to list "other changes"
>> (for example, upstream changes) in the Debian changelog.
>
> Where are you reading that ?

An upstream change is a change to the Debian package, too, and listing
them is expressly allowed under the "other changes" option.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libgtk2.0-0: changelog.Debian.gz is not an upstream changelog

[Christian Marillat]

Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> * Christian Marillat:
>
>> Apparently you don't understand (or don't care), because this is the second
>> time I file the same bug report (#344125), but as this package isn't a
>> native package the upstream changelog should not be here.
>
> Accoridng to Policy section 4.4, it's okay to list "other changes"
> (for example, upstream changes) in the Debian changelog.

Where are you reading that ?

Here is the relevant policy :

,
|  Changes in the Debian version of the package should be briefly
|  explained in the Debian changelog file `debian/changelog'.[1] This
|  includes modifications made in the Debian package compared to the
|  upstream one as well as other changes and updates to the package. [2]
| 
| [...]
| 
| [2]  Although there is nothing stopping an author who is also the Debian
|  maintainer from using this changelog for all their changes, it will
|  have to be renamed if the Debian and upstream maintainers become
|  different people.  In such a case, however, it might be better to
|  maintain the package as a non-native package.
`

Christian


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libgtk2.0-0: changelog.Debian.gz is not an upstream changelog

[Florian Weimer]

* Christian Marillat:

> Apparently you don't understand (or don't care), because this is the second
> time I file the same bug report (#344125), but as this package isn't a
> native package the upstream changelog should not be here.

Accoridng to Policy section 4.4, it's okay to list "other changes"
(for example, upstream changes) in the Debian changelog.

Do you want to say that Policy is wrong?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]