Guillem Jover wrote: > By definition a binNMU cannot produce a source package anyway, so I > fail to see the point in this artifical need to distinguish “source” > and “binary” changelogs through different files, AFAIR I already
Why "artificial"? Isn't it a completely natural and consistent view to say that the main changelog documents changes to the source package? Binary rebuilds aren't really changes at all in this sense; the main reason they need to be tracked explicitly at this level is to generate consistent version numbers for the different binaries. Unlike entries documenting source package changes, binNMU changelog entries are not kept in future versions of the package. Doesn't that alone show there is a real significant distinction? [ Note: not crossposted everywhere like the original ] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1339522369.21597.113.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid
