Duncan wrote:
I'm a user, and despite the fact that I tend to run ~arch or even pre-tree
testing overlays, I find ebuild removal information in the changelog WAY
more useful than, say, when some obscure arch keyworded a version.
Ergo, the argument that users don't find that info useful is disproven.
Users DO find it useful. I /as/ a user find it useful and get rather
annoyed when I'm trying to trace a change and there's no entry at all for
it in the changelog!
So, please /do/ make ebuild removal entries in the changelog, as users
/do/ find them useful. =:^)
I'm a user, tho a lowly one, and even I look in the changelogs from time
to time. I don't even see why this should be discussed. If you
*change* something, but it in the *change* log. If not, maybe the
changelog should be called something else.
Using the logic that something being removed is not a change, then
adding something is a change either. Adding something is important and
I think something being removed is important too.
Dale
:-) :-)
