On Thursday, July 26, 2012 10:29:02 PM Benjamin Drung wrote: > > > 1) The changelog should only contain entries for version that are > > > actually in the archive. In your case, only one changelog entry would > > > remain. > > > > > > > > But the program has been packaged on a launchpad PPA up until this > > point, so theoretically there are users in the wild with old versions > > of this package. It's not like this is the first ever version of the > > package and I just arbitrarily felt like creating a retroactive > > changelog for nonexistent packages. Am I seriously supposed to > > truncate the changelog just because I'm seeking the package's > > inclusion in debian? > > It's my opinion, that debian/changelog should only contain entries for > uploads to Debian. IMO every new upload to Debian should add only one > new block in the changelog file. Having entries like "gottengeography > (1.1-2) unstable; urgency=low" are misleading, because they were never > uploaded to unstable. It should at least detectable, what versions were > uploaded to Debian and which were uploaded somewhere else.
I have seen it done both ways, but this too is my preference. It's not like there's something wrong with the older changes, but it's simply not relevant to Debian. I have, in the past, made the historical changelog something like debian/changelog.old, made a new one and then shipped the old one in /usr/share/doc/$PACKAGE. There isn't hard policy on this. One of the difficulties of needing to be sponsored is that to some degree you've got to conform to the sponsor's view on things. For me that was part of the motivation to become a DD and an ubuntu-dev. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
