On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <po...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > Xan Lopez wrote: >> 2009/9/26 Josselin Mouette <j...@debian.org>: >>> Le samedi 26 septembre 2009 à 12:27 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi a écrit : >>>> on the serious side: auto-generation of ChangeLogs is all fine and >>>> dandy, but distribution packagers should care about the NEWS files being >>>> correct[0]; a NEWS file is usually much more readable than an old style >>>> ChangeLog[1]. >>> And generally I read the NEWS, but often I need more than that, and an >>> appropriate ChangeLog is required. >>> >>> Furthermore, NEWS doesn’t comply with the GPL, which requires at least >>> the modification dates. >> >> If I read GPL 2 correctly it says the files themselves should have >> "prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the dates of >> any change", so it would be interesting to know if you think we should >> do that too. Or maybe that's going too far, a waste of time for the >> developers and a duplication of information that is readily available >> elsewhere. Like ChangeLogs. > > That's precisely the point, ChangeLogs are not readily available anymore in > many > tarballs since the migration to git. All we want is for them to be generated > in > the tarballs again.
Sure, as ebassi said that's reasonable, an I do that for my modules. My only point was that being anal in quoting the GPL to get the point across is a bit silly IMHO, since we are not even following it strictly in the first place. Xan > > Cheers, > Emilio > > > _______________________________________________ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list > _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list