[Pkg-xfce-devel] README: Proposal for unreleased
packages/changelog entries
Emanuele Rocca
ema at debian.org
Mon Dec 19 15:10:01 UTC 2005
Hello Simon,
* Simon Huggins <huggie at earth.li>, [2005-12-18 20:11 +0000]:
> Right. I think what I'd like to standardise on is a changelog entry like:
> xfce4-session (4.2.3-2) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
>
> * blah blah
>
> -- Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac at corsac.net> Sun, 06 Nov 2005 22:01:12 +0100
>
> That way it's easy to do:
> [/pkg-xfce/desktop/trunk]$ grep UNREL */debian/changelog
> to find out which packages need uploading.
I agree.
> If your email address isn't in Uploaders (mostly thinking of Jani but
> any others too) then use the name/email of someone who is or don't put a
> real name there so that whoever does upload it replaces it.
>
> On top of this I'd like to propose that whereever possible we use a
> common format for changes which are made by more than one person.
>
> I personally like:
>
> * (Simon Huggins)
> * blah1
> * blah2
> * (Yves-Alexis Perez)
> * blah3
> * blah4
> etc.
I *strongly* agree here, the method based only on initals was less
clear IMHO.
> And I personally prefer the "closes: #nnnnnn" form of closing bugs and
> aligning that on the righthand side of the changelog.
>
> If anyone wants to argue strenuously for another form then please do so
> here.
No problem for me.
> Please DO NOT change old changelogs to reflect these changes.
> Changelogs should only ever be added to as per policy/best-practice (I
> forget which).
> It'd be good to swap the current top entries to UNRELEASED for those
> packages which aren't in the archive though.
Right.
> Also Jani, yes I think you do want to add a changelog entry which closes
> that bug to the battery plugin as long as you are happy that it works.
> I guess changelog entries would ideally hit at the same time as the
> patch to the package, yes.
> In terms of testing unreleased packages I'd assume that you've all
> looked at the debdiff output of both the source (dsc) and the binary
> packages (changes) from the version in unstable as that's what I tend to
> look at before I upload.
>
> Otherwise useful tests are lintian and linda (are there other tools I
> forgot?).
Well, other useful tools are described in the chapter 7
('Checking the package for errors') of the New Maintainers' Guide.
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/ch-checkit.en.html
I'd like to underline the benefits of testing the build process with
pbuilder; easy and useful. :)
Another useful resource is Matthew Palmer's "Checklist for sponsored
packages":
http://people.debian.org/~mpalmer/sponsorship_checklist.html
ciao,
ema
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-xfce-devel/attachments/20051219/622c7609/attachment.pgp
More information about the Pkg-xfce-devel
mailing list