Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Technically, you are correct; if we look solely to the letter > of the policy. However, if there was a rationale to asking changelogs > to be compressed, surely that applies even more so to older > changelog-like files? (Older changelog files are even less likely to > be of interest).
Here's my understanding of why we always compress debian and upstream changelogs: 1. We expect that even if they are too small (<4 k or whatever) to make compression worthwhile now, they will grow over time. 2. We want these files to always have the same name, so it's easy to find them. Seems to me that secondary upstream changelogs already fail point #2. Even if point #1 is valid for them, there should be no problem with compressing them only if they get too big, becuase name consitency is not an issue. -- see shy jo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
