Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > If I report "segmentation fault in ls", I--as a user of ls, not a
> > > developer--couldn't care less about why it was segfaulting or how the
> > > bug was fixed; I only care that it's been fixed. If a developer wants
> > > to spend their limited time researching how the bug was fixed and
> > > summarizing it in a changelog, great, but it's certainly not something I'd
> > > expect everyone to do.
> >
> > It's not about summarizing how the bug was fixed. It's about summarizing
> > the
> > bug *itself* in the changelog.
>
> I certainly prefer it if the changelog tells how the bug was fixed. This
> documents the difference between:
>
> * New upstream release
> - Removed the entire subsystem which contained this bug (Closes: #xxx)
>
> * New upstream release
> - Made the "foo" option create its file with sane permissions (Closes:
> #xxx)
See
manpages (1.58-1) unstable; urgency=low
[..]
* New upstream source (1.58) (closes: Bug#175564, Bug#175287)
[..]
. Updated deprecation information on getipnodebyname(3) (closes
Bug#183112, Bug#176709, Bug#157746, Bug#152780)
. Updated realpath(3) now warns that MAXPATHLEN may not exist (closes:
Bug#152136)
. Upstream added links for modfl(3) and modff(3) (partially fixes:
Bug#17872)
. Upstream added undocumented(2) (closes: Bug#149397)
[..]
I hope this reflects good packaging practice.
Regards,
Joey
--
If you come from outside of Finland, you live in wrong country.
-- motd of irc.funet.fi
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
