Hi Kai,
Kai Hendry wrote:
> Could you point out exactly how I screwed up the changelog? And maybe
> how to fix it?
I'm not Daniel, but: when writing the changelog it is best to follow
the conventions of whoever you are working with and to consider your
audience (meaning the users).
To take an example:
* Fix "should Provide dwm-tools" <Reverted the change for smooth
upgrades> (Closes: #614032)
When reading this, it's not clear to me what change was actually made.
Only after reading bug#614032 and the git log do I understand that this
version adds "Provides: dwm-tools" (and that it is not reverting to a
previous state --- previously there was a dwm-tools transitional package,
but Provides don't seem to have been used before). It would be more
helpful to describe the change straightforwardly:
* Let suckless-tools satisfy dependencies on dwm-tools (Closes:
#614032).
That way, if someone has a "Conflicts: dwm-tools" in a private package
and wonders what went wrong, the changelog says.
As icing on the cake, it can be good to spell out the rationale, like
you did.
* Let suckless-tools satisfy dependencies on dwm-tools, for smoother
upgrades (Closes: #614032).
Finally, to follow the principle of least surprise, one would want to
blend in with the style of Daniel's changelog entries for the package.
That means phrasing this as a present participle, something like:
* Adding a "Provides" relation so suckless-tools can satisfy
dependencies by old packages on dwm-tools (Closes: #614032)
> Thanks for your time from Kuala Lumpur!
Thanks for keeping suckless-tools in good shape, and hope that helps.
Cheers,
Jonathan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
