Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> > If the upstream changelog file is HTML formatted, it must be > > must? > > >> > accessible as `/usr/doc/<package>/changelog.html.gz'. A plain > >> > text version of the changelog must be accessible as > >> > `/usr/doc/<package>/changelog.gz' (this can be created by > >> > `lynx -dump -nolist'). > > > Why are both mandated? Why can't we just have > /usr/doc/<package>/changelog.gz, however it was created? I havr no > objections if the html stuff is there too, but what is the rationale > for haing both the text and the html *mandated* by policy?
My rationale for mandating a changelog.gz is for consitency, so you can easily find the changelog in every package. I don't have a rationale for requiring a html changelog, because that is already in policy. It went in last fall, I believe. I think Manoj has a point. How about: If the upstream changelog file is HTML formatted, it may be made available as /usr/doc/<package>/changelog.html.gz'. A plain text version of the changelog must be accessible as /usr/doc/<package>/changelog.gz' (this can be created by lynx -dump -nolist'). Can I get some seconds (or comments) on this alteration to the proposal? -- see shy jo
