Hi list The subject came up at FOSDEM on a packaging discussion. I thought it'd be worth bringing up here. Pacman has extremely basic and non-advertised support for changelogs. These are maintainer changelogs, not upstream changelogs, and seem to be completely useless. In fact, in my 900~ package install, only iotop and zsh-syntax-highlighting have a changelog at all and they all list "Updated to release ...". My personal recommendation, and what makes the most sense, is to allow for (and highly recommend) upstream changelogs. If there is a changelog file, that can be displayed in pacman -Qc (regardless of its format). There is also the subject of online-only changelogs. Should they be downloaded, or should -Qc display "Read the changelog at http://..."? My first thought is that's up to the packager/maintainer, they would know better on a per-package basis. Debian is really good with its packaging changelogs. Afaik they're the only distro that properly uses them. They're a lot less relevant to arch linux due to the very nature of the distro ("trust upstream") but I don't think they're useless; in fact, we should probably distinguish packaging and upstream changelogs. Final question is, what of the syntax? I have a few things in mind but I'd like to hear whether such changes would be welcome at all first. Cheers J. Leclanche