Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > In balance, I think I prefer changing the changelog syntax to > include closed=, though it raises the spectre of modifying > changelog.el and dpkg-parsechangelog. >
Why? That syntax should be interpreted by the installer's scripts on master, not on the maintainer's side. If we want to have dpkg-parsechangelog output an advice so the maintainer could find errors before the upload, then it is ok, it could help, but is the installation message sent back to the maintainer that should advice of the bugs automagically closed. (My suggestion on this could be that Guy adds the changelog files to that message and CCs it to each XXXX-done so the apropriate mailing list and the original submitter receive it too, including the explanation that should be in the changes entry. About changelog.el, I can understand how much helpfull it can be to those that use emacs, but I would like not to see syntax requirements enforced "because of the .el". I really don't understand why dpkg-parsechangelog rejects changelog files that have 3 instead of 2 spaces at the beginning of one row. [no flame about the best editor, please. Everybody is free to use the editor he likes; in Naples they say: Ogni scarrafone รจ bell'a mamma soja = each beetle is handsome for his mother) Be conservator in your output, and liberal in what you accept as input (sorry to everybody, this is my free re-translation into english: corrections are welcome, I simply don't remember the original sentence in english) See the other message I posted today to this thread for a very liberal parsing of "close[s]=[bug]#1234"; please remember that some editor can split such a line on the "=" sign, and it's easy for us to accept those lines too. Fabrizio -- | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Pluto Leader - Debian Developer & Happy Debian 1.3.1 User - vi-holic | 6F7267F5 fingerprint 57 16 C4 ED C9 86 40 7B 1A 69 A1 66 EC FB D2 5E > Just because Red Hat do it doesn't mean it's a good idea. [Ian J.]