Hello Bill, On Fri 27 Jul 2018 at 12:31PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> I am fine with the removal of source-level changelogs, with the provisio > that the concept of source-level changelog be clearly defined in policy. > This needs to be worded carefully so that maintainers do not start > removing user-oriented changelogs that happen to be named 'changelog', > 'Changelog', etc. It is also not uncommon for packages to have both a > user-oriented changelog and a NEWS file (which is basically the tl;dr of > the user-level changelog). > > In that sense, the latest draft of Sean is a step in the right direction. > > I might be wrong, but I do not think the majority of upstream changelog > are source-level changelog, except for GNU software. Changing debhelper > not to install upstream changelog by default will likely create more > bugs than it will fix. After my patch Policy refers to "upstream release notes" and explicitly says that those are user-oriented, and I think we can trust maintainers to be able to identify those no matter what the file in which they are contained is called. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
