I am rather surprised at this statement. There was a discussion last fall on the issue and it was settled that debstd's behavior was satisfying the policy. Is there any newfound reason for compressing small changelogs?
The policy should clearly say what should be done (not wasting space) but not state how it is to be accomplished. I think I am wasting my time here. This whole compression business is soooo important. I wonder if we ever get to fixing real bugs. On Sat, 29 Nov 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote: > > Hi! > > What's the intention of this (silly) discussion? Policy is very clear that > the changelog file has to be compressed no matter how large it is. > > Someone provided a patch for debstd which makes it comply with this > policy. > > So the only reason for discussion would be to change the policy. Is that > what you want to achieve? Then, please post a proposal for a policy change > and explain why your proposal is better than the old policy. > > > Thanks, > > Chris > > -- Christian Schwarz > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > Don't know Perl? [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Visit PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 > BA > http://www.perl.com http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/ > > >
