[maemo-developers] [maemo-developers] libosso svn up-to-date?

From: Guillem Jover guillem.jover at nokia.com
Date: Wed Oct 4 15:44:45 EEST 2006
On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 14:36:24 +0300, ext Kimmo Hämäläinen wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 14:04, ext Murray Cumming wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 13:45 +0300, Kimmo Hämäläinen wrote:
> > > Yes, it does not tell the reasons for the changes (they are in
> > > debian/changelog), but I'm too lazy to put those since you seem to be
> > > the only one who is interested about Libosso changes ;)

I consider those two serve different purposes, ChangeLog (as in upstream)
explains in detail up to the function and variable level what has been
changed. And debian/changelog describes the packaging changes, and a
summary of upstream changes if it's native package.

> > At the moment, nobody (me included) knows what on earth libosso is. The
> > README is empty, for instance.
> It's there just because automake complains otherwise.

That's because automake defaults to gnu strictness, if you are not
following the GCS[0] you probably want:


> 98% of Debian packages the README file is totally useless anyway.

On this one I disagree, if you have specific examples, please tell me
or file bug reports.

> > ChangeLogs are one way to introduce people to what a module does and how
> > it works, and how it is evolving. Not doing ChangeLogs because nobody
> > cares about them would be almost a circular argument.

[ This snipped reordered ]
> The code and API should be pretty self-explaining (yes, they're not,
> that's why I'm working on new API).

> Well, just try to use the diff. The code is so simple that manually
> writing some ChangeLog just seems stupid to me.

It's not about the code being simple, it's about having an offline
history of what has been changed and how the code evolved. That's
pretty useful when tracking down bugs for example.

[0] <http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html>


More information about the maemo-developers mailing list