On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Martin Pluskal
1. Some reviewers insist on adding a lot of lines to .changes files claiming that there are common practices to do so. But many packages do this differently. And personally I think it's plain wrong to add all upstream changes to fit into .changes when simply updating to a new upstream release.
+1 if someone is really interested in details, reading the changelog upstream should be sufficient.
-1 That requires a user to download the upstream package independently just because the packaging process has intentionally truncated or abridged the information - "updated from upstream" is about as useful as the "fixed some bugs" message popular on some mobile appstores.
Not necessarily, upstream changelog is often attached to package unformated - what I do in cases where converting upstream changelog to .changes would be too difficult is to add something like "see attached Changes" - while I understat that it is not helpfull to all end users, I also recognise that most people are actually not reading rpm changelogs anyway.
My opinion (as complete packaging newbie) is, that fill properly .changes file can be difficult. Sometimes is upstream changelog very long, sometimes is almost empty. You can cherry pick interesting points, but i guess that line "updated to version X.Y.Z" should be sufficient. Well, it is change file for package in obs, so anything related to creation of the package should be there. Like added/removed specific patches, cleaned spec file, package split, specifics related to openSUSE..etc... So I would vote, that comments "updated from upstream", "see attached Changes" should be enough. Petr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org