[opensuse-packaging] Another side effect of opening factory

Stephan Kulow

18 Jun 2009 18 Jun '09

11:51

Hi, As we disable the package database, there is one rather important change that I only figured the importance of today: So far the spec files are rewritten to use the texts and attributes from the package database a) when checked in factory b) when building Both steps will be disabled in the future, we still will do some formatting, but we won't take any attributes (AFAIK) so the spec file contains the master information. So there are consequences out of this: 1) we have quite some spec files that haven't been checked in a while and as b) is disabled, they will use old informations when building. 2) we have quite some packages that are creating placeholders into summary and description and relying on a) to create useful spec files. This will no longer be the case. For 1) I did some scripting to find out where the differences are if I would sr all packages _NOW_ (while pdb is still active). The list of changes is impressive, but I will filter out less important cases (e.g. where only the changelog is affected - as this will still be reformated in the future): http://www.suse.de/~coolo/spec_patches/ We may end up checkin in these diffs without spamming opensuse-commit, just so you know if your branched package broke (IMO it's very unlikely it will as this affects mostly packages without active development). For 2) you need to act: if your spec file is generated from a vcs, then you need to merge texts and attributes back into the template. If you have a package using a script to generate the spec file, then you need to enhance the script. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Show replies by date

Petr Baudis

18 Jun 18 Jun

14:00

Hi! On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 01:51:59PM +0200, Stephan Kulow wrote:

...

For 2) you need to act: if your spec file is generated from a vcs, then you need to merge texts and attributes back into the template. If you have a package using a script to generate the spec file, then you need to enhance the script.

So how do I get osc to update my .spec file with the up-to-date data? 'osc up' alone won't do it, apparently. (At least the %changelog section is still out-of-date.) I can see just metafromspec for the other direction... -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne. -- Chaucer -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Stephan Kulow

17:47

...

Hi!

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 01:51:59PM +0200, Stephan Kulow wrote:

...
For 2) you need to act: if your spec file is generated from a vcs, then you need to merge texts and attributes back into the template. If you have a package using a script to generate the spec file, then you need to enhance the script.

So how do I get osc to update my .spec file with the up-to-date data? 'osc up' alone won't do it, apparently. (At least the %changelog section is still out-of-date.) I can see just metafromspec for the other direction...

On Thursday 18 June 2009 16:00:43 Petr Baudis wrote: the build package has /usr/lib/build/changelog2spec Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Richard Guenther

16:04

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Stephan Kulow wrote:

...

Hi,

As we disable the package database, there is one rather important change that I only figured the importance of today:

So far the spec files are rewritten to use the texts and attributes from the package database a) when checked in factory b) when building

Both steps will be disabled in the future, we still will do some formatting, but we won't take any attributes (AFAIK) so the spec file contains the master information.

So there are consequences out of this: 1) we have quite some spec files that haven't been checked in a while and as b) is disabled, they will use old informations when building. 2) we have quite some packages that are creating placeholders into summary and description and relying on a) to create useful spec files. This will no longer be the case.

For 1) I did some scripting to find out where the differences are if I would sr all packages _NOW_ (while pdb is still active). The list of changes is impressive, but I will filter out less important cases (e.g. where only the changelog is affected - as this will still be reformated in the future): http://www.suse.de/~coolo/spec_patches/ We may end up checkin in these diffs without spamming opensuse-commit, just so you know if your branched package broke (IMO it's very unlikely it will as this affects mostly packages without active development).

For 2) you need to act: if your spec file is generated from a vcs, then you need to merge texts and attributes back into the template. If you have a package using a script to generate the spec file, then you need to enhance the script.

Does this mean there will be another external authorative source for this kind of information in the future (thus, the .spec files will be edited automatically again)? Or can the local file that the .spec files are generated from be the "master" copy - in which case I don't see the need to enhance the scripts but only do a manual merge once? Thanks, Richard. -- Richard Guenther Novell / SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Stephan Kulow

17:45

On Thursday 18 June 2009 18:04:51 Richard Guenther wrote:

...

...
For 2) you need to act: if your spec file is generated from a vcs, then you need to merge texts and attributes back into the template. If you have a package using a script to generate the spec file, then you need to enhance the script.

Does this mean there will be another external authorative source for this kind of information in the future (thus, the .spec files will be edited automatically again)? Or can the local file that the .spec They will be formatted - to add the changelog for example. but the attributes and the texts do not have another source from what I understood.

...

files are generated from be the "master" copy - in which case I don't see the need to enhance the scripts but only do a manual merge once? That highly depends on what your script does I guess. I know that yast packages have "Summary: -" in their svn, I know that bundle-lang had "Summary: Summary" in the generated spec files, etc.

Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Vincent Untz

21:07

Le jeudi 18 juin 2009, à 19:45 +0200, Stephan Kulow a écrit :

...

On Thursday 18 June 2009 18:04:51 Richard Guenther wrote:

...
...
For 2) you need to act: if your spec file is generated from a vcs, then you need to merge texts and attributes back into the template. If you have a package using a script to generate the spec file, then you need to enhance the script.

Does this mean there will be another external authorative source for this kind of information in the future (thus, the .spec files will be edited automatically again)? Or can the local file that the .spec They will be formatted - to add the changelog for example. but the attributes and the texts do not have another source from what I understood.

Is there any reason we put the changelog data in %changelog since the data is in .changes files?? Can't we just let it happen during the build and not have this in the spec files in the obs? This would make them much shorter, which would be a good thing, I think. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Suman Manjunath

19 Jun 19 Jun

03:41

On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 02:37, Vincent Untz wrote:

...

Is there any reason we put the changelog data in %changelog since the data is in .changes files?? Can't we just let it happen during the build and not have this in the spec files in the obs? This would make them much shorter, which would be a good thing, I think.

+1 -Suman -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Michael Matz

03:46

Hi, On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Vincent Untz wrote:

...

...
...
Does this mean there will be another external authorative source for this kind of information in the future (thus, the .spec files will be edited automatically again)? Or can the local file that the .spec They will be formatted - to add the changelog for example. but the attributes and the texts do not have another source from what I understood.

Is there any reason we put the changelog data in %changelog since the data is in .changes files??

No. If you did or do that, you're wasting time. %changelog was and will be rewritten from the content of .changes. We for instance never cared for %changelog sections in .spec files, only for .changes files. Simply leave the section empty (I'm not sure what happens if you leave it out alltogether, so just empty it). Ciao, Michael. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Pavol Rusnak

12:00

New subject: Remove .changes was Re: [opensuse-packaging] Another side effect of opening factory

Michael Matz wrote:

...

Hi,

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Vincent Untz wrote:

...
...
...
Does this mean there will be another external authorative source for this kind of information in the future (thus, the .spec files will be edited automatically again)? Or can the local file that the .spec They will be formatted - to add the changelog for example. but the attributes and the texts do not have another source from what I understood. Is there any reason we put the changelog data in %changelog since the data is in .changes files??

No. If you did or do that, you're wasting time. %changelog was and will be rewritten from the content of .changes. We for instance never cared for %changelog sections in .spec files, only for .changes files. Simply leave the section empty (I'm not sure what happens if you leave it out alltogether, so just empty it).

Right. If you leave it out, rpmlint will emit a warning. But I have another question: isn't now a good time to get rid off .changes files completely? (+adjusting tools like vc and osc) -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o Package Maintainer Lihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9, CR prusnak[at]suse.cz http://www.suse.cz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Wolfgang Rosenauer

12:16

New subject: Remove .changes was Re: [opensuse-packaging] Another side effect of opening factory

Pavol Rusnak schrieb:

...

Michael Matz wrote:

...
Hi,

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Vincent Untz wrote:

...
...
...
Does this mean there will be another external authorative source for this kind of information in the future (thus, the .spec files will be edited automatically again)? Or can the local file that the .spec They will be formatted - to add the changelog for example. but the attributes and the texts do not have another source from what I understood. Is there any reason we put the changelog data in %changelog since the data is in .changes files?? No. If you did or do that, you're wasting time. %changelog was and will be rewritten from the content of .changes. We for instance never cared for %changelog sections in .spec files, only for .changes files. Simply leave the section empty (I'm not sure what happens if you leave it out alltogether, so just empty it).

Right. If you leave it out, rpmlint will emit a warning. But I have another question: isn't now a good time to get rid off .changes files completely? (+adjusting tools like vc and osc)

Hum, why? I very much prefer the *.changes files about the changelog in the spec file. Why would you want to change that? Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Pavol Rusnak

12:18

New subject: Remove .changes was Re: [opensuse-packaging] Another side effect of opening factory

Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:

...

Pavol Rusnak schrieb:

...
Michael Matz wrote:

...
Hi,

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Vincent Untz wrote:

...
...
...
Does this mean there will be another external authorative source for this kind of information in the future (thus, the .spec files will be edited automatically again)? Or can the local file that the .spec They will be formatted - to add the changelog for example. but the attributes and the texts do not have another source from what I understood. Is there any reason we put the changelog data in %changelog since the data is in .changes files?? No. If you did or do that, you're wasting time. %changelog was and will be rewritten from the content of .changes. We for instance never cared for %changelog sections in .spec files, only for .changes files. Simply leave the section empty (I'm not sure what happens if you leave it out alltogether, so just empty it). Right. If you leave it out, rpmlint will emit a warning. But I have another question: isn't now a good time to get rid off .changes files completely? (+adjusting tools like vc and osc)

Hum, why? I very much prefer the *.changes files about the changelog in the spec file. Why would you want to change that?

1) They are SUSE specific 2) They contain time with timezone, which sometimes cause trouble -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o Package Maintainer Lihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9, CR prusnak[at]suse.cz http://www.suse.cz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Thorsten Kukuk

12:22

New subject: Remove .changes was Re: [opensuse-packaging] Another side effect of opening factory

On Fri, Jun 19, Pavol Rusnak wrote:

...

Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:

...
Pavol Rusnak schrieb:

...
Michael Matz wrote:

...
Hi,

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Vincent Untz wrote:

...
...
> Does this mean there will be another external authorative source for > this kind of information in the future (thus, the .spec files will > be edited automatically again)? Or can the local file that the > .spec They will be formatted - to add the changelog for example. but the attributes and the texts do not have another source from what I understood. Is there any reason we put the changelog data in %changelog since the data is in .changes files?? No. If you did or do that, you're wasting time. %changelog was and will be rewritten from the content of .changes. We for instance never cared for %changelog sections in .spec files, only for .changes files. Simply leave the section empty (I'm not sure what happens if you leave it out alltogether, so just empty it). Right. If you leave it out, rpmlint will emit a warning. But I have another question: isn't now a good time to get rid off .changes files completely? (+adjusting tools like vc and osc)

Hum, why? I very much prefer the *.changes files about the changelog in the spec file. Why would you want to change that?

1) They are SUSE specific 2) They contain time with timezone, which sometimes cause trouble

Only if you enter them in the wrong order. Especially the time with timezone information is very helpful for me track who made which changes at which time in which order. Thorsten -- Thorsten Kukuk, Project Manager/Release Manager SLES SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Pavol Rusnak

12:28

New subject: Remove .changes was Re: [opensuse-packaging] Another side effect of opening factory

Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, Pavol Rusnak wrote:
> 
>> Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
>>> Pavol Rusnak schrieb:
>>>> Michael Matz wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Vincent Untz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does this mean there will be another external authorative source for 
>>>>>>>> this kind of information in the future (thus, the .spec files will 
>>>>>>>> be edited automatically again)?  Or can the local file that the 
>>>>>>>> .spec
>>>>>>> They will be formatted - to add the changelog for example. but the 
>>>>>>> attributes and the texts do not have another source from what I 
>>>>>>> understood.
>>>>>> Is there any reason we put the changelog data in %changelog since the 
>>>>>> data is in .changes files??
>>>>> No.  If you did or do that, you're wasting time.  %changelog was and will 
>>>>> be rewritten from the content of .changes.  We for instance never cared 
>>>>> for %changelog sections in .spec files, only for .changes files.  Simply 
>>>>> leave the section empty (I'm not sure what happens if you leave it out 
>>>>> alltogether, so just empty it).
>>>> Right. If you leave it out, rpmlint will emit a warning. But I have
>>>> another question: isn't now a good time to get rid off .changes files
>>>> completely? (+adjusting tools like vc and osc)
>>> Hum, why?
>>> I very much prefer the *.changes files about the changelog in the spec
>>> file. Why would you want to change that?
>> 1) They are SUSE specific
>> 2) They contain time with timezone, which sometimes cause trouble
> 
> Only if you enter them in the wrong order.
> Especially the time with timezone information is very helpful for
> me track who made which changes at which time in which order.

Entering changes in wrong order is very easy in OBS. Suppose you have 2
submit-requests against the same version. They both contain patch to
.changes file with the same context. When you accept them in the wrong
order (even the higher SR number can contain the older change) you're in
trouble. Thus I would at least prefer normalizing the times to UTC.

-- 
Best Regards / S pozdravom,

Pavol RUSNAK                                       SUSE LINUX, s.r.o
Package Maintainer                                Lihovarska 1060/12
PGP 0xA6917144                                     19000 Praha 9, CR
prusnak[at]suse.cz                                http://www.suse.cz
-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Ludwig Nussel

12:35

New subject: Remove .changes was Re: [opensuse-packaging] Another side effect of opening factory

Pavol Rusnak wrote:

...

[.changes file] Thus I would at least prefer normalizing the times to UTC.

I've just recently changed buildvc in svn to use UTC (actually Michal requested that some time ago already but I forgot about it). cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.de/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Pavol Rusnak

13:32

New subject: Remove .changes was Re: [opensuse-packaging] Another side effect of opening factory

Ludwig Nussel wrote:

...

Pavol Rusnak wrote:

...
[.changes file] Thus I would at least prefer normalizing the times to UTC.

I've just recently changed buildvc in svn to use UTC (actually Michal requested that some time ago already but I forgot about it).

Thanks Ludwig! I can live with that ... If there are no other objections against using .changes we can close this discussion.

...

cu Ludwig

-- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o Package Maintainer Lihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9, CR prusnak[at]suse.cz http://www.suse.cz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Marcus Rueckert

13:09

New subject: Remove .changes was Re: [opensuse-packaging] Another side effect of opening factory

On 2009-06-19 14:18:59 +0200, Pavol Rusnak wrote:

...

1) They are SUSE specific 2) They contain time with timezone, which sometimes cause trouble

rpm doesnt track hours/minutes. darix -- openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux openSUSE is good for you www.opensuse.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Dominique Leuenberger

12:24

New subject: Remove .changes was Re: [opensuse-packaging] Another side effectof opening factory

...

...
...
On 6/19/2009 at 14:00, Pavol Rusnak wrote: Right. If you leave it out, rpmlint will emit a warning. But I have another question: isn't now a good time to get rid off .changes files completely? (+adjusting tools like vc and osc)

I actually got kinda used to 'osc vc" to write the changelog and it 'feels' more structured, organized than inside the spec file for me. Maybe it's only the header lines that make it more structured, but it surely helps. Dominique -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Vincent Untz

13:48

Le vendredi 19 juin 2009, à 05:46 +0200, Michael Matz a écrit :

...

Hi,

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Vincent Untz wrote:

...
...
...
Does this mean there will be another external authorative source for this kind of information in the future (thus, the .spec files will be edited automatically again)? Or can the local file that the .spec They will be formatted - to add the changelog for example. but the attributes and the texts do not have another source from what I understood.

Is there any reason we put the changelog data in %changelog since the data is in .changes files??

No. If you did or do that, you're wasting time. %changelog was and will be rewritten from the content of .changes. We for instance never cared for %changelog sections in .spec files, only for .changes files. Simply leave the section empty (I'm not sure what happens if you leave it out alltogether, so just empty it).

(sorry if this wasn't clear, I meant: the build service always adds the data from .changes to %changelog and commits it; I hate that, I want to keep an empty %changelog since .changes is better structured, more readable, etc.) Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Marcus Rueckert

15:00

On 2009-06-19 15:48:24 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:

...

Le vendredi 19 juin 2009, à 05:46 +0200, Michael Matz a écrit :

...
Hi,

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Vincent Untz wrote:

...
...
...
Does this mean there will be another external authorative source for this kind of information in the future (thus, the .spec files will be edited automatically again)? Or can the local file that the .spec They will be formatted - to add the changelog for example. but the attributes and the texts do not have another source from what I understood.

Is there any reason we put the changelog data in %changelog since the data is in .changes files??

No. If you did or do that, you're wasting time. %changelog was and will be rewritten from the content of .changes. We for instance never cared for %changelog sections in .spec files, only for .changes files. Simply leave the section empty (I'm not sure what happens if you leave it out alltogether, so just empty it).

(sorry if this wasn't clear, I meant: the build service always adds the data from .changes to %changelog and commits it; I hate that, I want to keep an empty %changelog since .changes is better structured, more readable, etc.)

thats not the obs. those are the autobuild scripts. darix -- openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux openSUSE is good for you www.opensuse.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Stefan Behlert

15:07

On Jun 19, 09 17:00:05 +0200, Marcus Rueckert wrote:

...

On 2009-06-19 15:48:24 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:

...
Le vendredi 19 juin 2009, à 05:46 +0200, Michael Matz a écrit :

...
Hi,

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Vincent Untz wrote:

...
...
...
Does this mean there will be another external authorative source for this kind of information in the future (thus, the .spec files will be edited automatically again)? Or can the local file that the .spec They will be formatted - to add the changelog for example. but the attributes and the texts do not have another source from what I understood.

Is there any reason we put the changelog data in %changelog since the data is in .changes files??

No. If you did or do that, you're wasting time. %changelog was and will be rewritten from the content of .changes. We for instance never cared for %changelog sections in .spec files, only for .changes files. Simply leave the section empty (I'm not sure what happens if you leave it out alltogether, so just empty it).

(sorry if this wasn't clear, I meant: the build service always adds the data from .changes to %changelog and commits it; I hate that, I want to keep an empty %changelog since .changes is better structured, more readable, etc.)

I think you could add somethign like %changelog (nothing) and then that section does not get updated - not sure if that's the correct syntax, though. Darix?

...

thats not the obs. those are the autobuild scripts.

Doesn't matter who does it - it simply blows up the spec-file, and wastes space in the packages :)

...

darix

Stefan -- Stefan Behlert, SUSE LINUX - a Novell business, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg, Germany Phone +49-911-74053-173 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Nuernberg; GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Takashi Iwai

15:17

At Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:07:29 +0200, Stefan Behlert wrote:

...

On Jun 19, 09 17:00:05 +0200, Marcus Rueckert wrote:

...
On 2009-06-19 15:48:24 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:

...
Le vendredi 19 juin 2009, à 05:46 +0200, Michael Matz a écrit :

...
Hi,

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Vincent Untz wrote:

...
...
> Does this mean there will be another external authorative source for > this kind of information in the future (thus, the .spec files will > be edited automatically again)? Or can the local file that the > .spec They will be formatted - to add the changelog for example. but the attributes and the texts do not have another source from what I understood.

Is there any reason we put the changelog data in %changelog since the data is in .changes files??

No. If you did or do that, you're wasting time. %changelog was and will be rewritten from the content of .changes. We for instance never cared for %changelog sections in .spec files, only for .changes files. Simply leave the section empty (I'm not sure what happens if you leave it out alltogether, so just empty it).

(sorry if this wasn't clear, I meant: the build service always adds the data from .changes to %changelog and commits it; I hate that, I want to keep an empty %changelog since .changes is better structured, more readable, etc.)

I think you could add somethign like %changelog (nothing)

and then that section does not get updated - not sure if that's the correct syntax, though. Darix?

...
thats not the obs. those are the autobuild scripts.

Doesn't matter who does it - it simply blows up the spec-file, and wastes space in the packages :)

Worse than that, there is another possible point of merge conflicts at automatic updates. Takashi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Wolfgang Rosenauer

15:22

Stefan Behlert schrieb:

...

...
...
(sorry if this wasn't clear, I meant: the build service always adds the data from .changes to %changelog and commits it; I hate that, I want to keep an empty %changelog since .changes is better structured, more readable, etc.)

I think you could add somethign like %changelog (nothing)

and then that section does not get updated - not sure if that's the correct syntax, though. Darix?

...
thats not the obs. those are the autobuild scripts.

Doesn't matter who does it - it simply blows up the spec-file, and wastes space in the packages :)

Not sure what you all want so just to make that clear from my pov: I like the *.changes file (and times being UTC as discussed is fine) and I don't like the changes to be propagated into the saved specfile. What we absolutely need though is to have it in the package while building to have the changelog information in the rpm metadata. Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Stephan Kulow

10:15

On Thursday 18 June 2009 23:07:04 Vincent Untz wrote:

...

Is there any reason we put the changelog data in %changelog since the data is in .changes files?? Can't we just let it happen during the build and not have this in the spec files in the obs? This would make them much shorter, which would be a good thing, I think.

No idea. I guess the checkin script would need to be adopted to empty it. Especially as O:F is different to every other project atm in that accepting a package will rewrite the spec file :) Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Vincent Untz

13:47

Le vendredi 19 juin 2009, à 12:15 +0200, Stephan Kulow a écrit :

...

On Thursday 18 June 2009 23:07:04 Vincent Untz wrote:

...
Is there any reason we put the changelog data in %changelog since the data is in .changes files?? Can't we just let it happen during the build and not have this in the spec files in the obs? This would make them much shorter, which would be a good thing, I think.

No idea. I guess the checkin script would need to be adopted to empty it.

Where can I find the script? (ie, yes, I'm volunteering for the task) Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Stephan Kulow

22 Jun 22 Jun

10:42

Am Freitag 19 Juni 2009 schrieb Vincent Untz:

...

Le vendredi 19 juin 2009, à 12:15 +0200, Stephan Kulow a écrit :

...
On Thursday 18 June 2009 23:07:04 Vincent Untz wrote:

...
Is there any reason we put the changelog data in %changelog since the data is in .changes files?? Can't we just let it happen during the build and not have this in the spec files in the obs? This would make them much shorter, which would be a good thing, I think.

No idea. I guess the checkin script would need to be adopted to empty it.

Where can I find the script? (ie, yes, I'm volunteering for the task)

Add an option --minchangelog to /work/src/bin/tools/prepare_spec and we'll make sure it will be called that way at checking to factory. I would suggest the following format %changelog * Mon Jun 22 2009 coolo@novell.com - see gnome-libs.changes either take $TODAY or the top of .changes. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Marcus Rueckert

11:13

On 2009-06-22 12:42:28 +0200, Stephan Kulow wrote:

...

Am Freitag 19 Juni 2009 schrieb Vincent Untz:

...
Le vendredi 19 juin 2009, à 12:15 +0200, Stephan Kulow a écrit :

...
On Thursday 18 June 2009 23:07:04 Vincent Untz wrote:

...
Is there any reason we put the changelog data in %changelog since the data is in .changes files?? Can't we just let it happen during the build and not have this in the spec files in the obs? This would make them much shorter, which would be a good thing, I think.

No idea. I guess the checkin script would need to be adopted to empty it.

Where can I find the script? (ie, yes, I'm volunteering for the task)

Add an option --minchangelog to /work/src/bin/tools/prepare_spec and we'll make sure it will be called that way at checking to factory.

I would suggest the following format

%changelog * Mon Jun 22 2009 coolo@novell.com - see gnome-libs.changes

either take $TODAY or the top of .changes.

rudi already agreed on leaving an empty %changelog. the code is already in prepare_spec but was commented out for the friday night checkin. darix -- openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux openSUSE is good for you www.opensuse.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Stephan Kulow

11:17

Am Montag 22 Juni 2009 schrieb Marcus Rueckert:

...

On 2009-06-22 12:42:28 +0200, Stephan Kulow wrote:

...
Am Freitag 19 Juni 2009 schrieb Vincent Untz:

...
Le vendredi 19 juin 2009, à 12:15 +0200, Stephan Kulow a écrit :

...
On Thursday 18 June 2009 23:07:04 Vincent Untz wrote:

...
Is there any reason we put the changelog data in %changelog since the data is in .changes files?? Can't we just let it happen during the build and not have this in the spec files in the obs? This would make them much shorter, which would be a good thing, I think.

No idea. I guess the checkin script would need to be adopted to empty it.

Where can I find the script? (ie, yes, I'm volunteering for the task)

Add an option --minchangelog to /work/src/bin/tools/prepare_spec and we'll make sure it will be called that way at checking to factory.

I would suggest the following format

%changelog * Mon Jun 22 2009 coolo@novell.com - see gnome-libs.changes

either take $TODAY or the top of .changes.

rudi already agreed on leaving an empty %changelog. the code is already in prepare_spec but was commented out for the friday night checkin.

Then let's go ahead with future checkins. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Vincent Untz

18 Jun 18 Jun

21:05

Le jeudi 18 juin 2009, à 13:51 +0200, Stephan Kulow a écrit :

...

For 1) I did some scripting to find out where the differences are if I would sr all packages _NOW_ (while pdb is still active). The list of changes is impressive, but I will filter out less important cases (e.g. where only the changelog is affected - as this will still be reformated in the future): http://www.suse.de/~coolo/spec_patches/ We may end up checkin in these diffs without spamming opensuse-commit, just so you know if your branched package broke (IMO it's very unlikely it will as this affects mostly packages without active development).

Just wondering: I'm considering removing the "Authors" part of all descriptions (sometimes it's very long, and it's really not up-to-date anyway). Is this something that could be done in a similar fashion? Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Stephan Kulow

22 Jun 22 Jun

10:37

Am Donnerstag 18 Juni 2009 schrieb Vincent Untz:

...

Le jeudi 18 juin 2009, à 13:51 +0200, Stephan Kulow a écrit :

...
For 1) I did some scripting to find out where the differences are if I would sr all packages _NOW_ (while pdb is still active). The list of changes is impressive, but I will filter out less important cases (e.g. where only the changelog is affected - as this will still be reformated in the future): http://www.suse.de/~coolo/spec_patches/ We may end up checkin in these diffs without spamming opensuse-commit, just so you know if your branched package broke (IMO it's very unlikely it will as this affects mostly packages without active development).

Just wondering: I'm considering removing the "Authors" part of all descriptions (sometimes it's very long, and it's really not up-to-date anyway). Is this something that could be done in a similar fashion?

No, we don't touch the %descriptions at all anymore. I would suggest we offer a script that does what you suggest to the topic groups for them to run. I wouldn't make it a policy. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

5423

Age (days ago)

5427

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

28 comments

14 participants

participants (14)

Dominique Leuenberger
Ludwig Nussel
Marcus Rueckert
Michael Matz
Pavol Rusnak
Petr Baudis
Richard Guenther
Stefan Behlert
Stephan Kulow
Suman Manjunath
Takashi Iwai
Thorsten Kukuk
Vincent Untz
Wolfgang Rosenauer