Re: Packages with no changelogs

[Xan Lopez <xan gnome org>]

On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
<pochu ubuntu com> wrote:
> 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.

Sure, as ebassi said that's reasonable, an I do that for my modules.
My only point was that being anal in quoting the GPL to get the point
across is a bit silly IMHO, since we are not even following it
strictly in the first place.

Xan

>
> Cheers,
> Emilio
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
>