Xan Lopez wrote: > 2009/9/26 Josselin Mouette <joss 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. Cheers, Emilio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature