[opensuse-gnome] To Changelog or to not Changelog
Hello, Currently, when doing package updates, we have some (strange) policy that we have to put in what changes upstream made (ie, bugfixes, new features etc). All this information is already available in the NEWS/ChangeLog file for most packages. Since this doesn't seem to be an openSUSE policy [1] I wonder why we enforce this for GNOME components? Enforcing updates of the changelog makes it possible to check details of upstream changes with; # rpm -q --changelog nautilus By not enforcing these changes, one can do; # cat /usr/share/doc/packages/nautilus/NEWS I see little (if any) value in doing this, but it adds a lot of time when doing a package update, so I would like to change the policy to simple contain specific updates that the packager made (add/remove patch etc) Opinions? Cheers, Magnus [1] See KDE4 packages, for instance http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/KDE:/KDE4:/Factory:/Desktop/openSU... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org
On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 12:02 +1100, Magnus Boman wrote:
Hello,
Currently, when doing package updates, we have some (strange) policy that we have to put in what changes upstream made (ie, bugfixes, new features etc).
All this information is already available in the NEWS/ChangeLog file for most packages.
Since this doesn't seem to be an openSUSE policy [1] I wonder why we enforce this for GNOME components?
Enforcing updates of the changelog makes it possible to check details of upstream changes with;
# rpm -q --changelog nautilus
By not enforcing these changes, one can do;
# cat /usr/share/doc/packages/nautilus/NEWS
I see little (if any) value in doing this, but it adds a lot of time when doing a package update, so I would like to change the policy to simple contain specific updates that the packager made (add/remove patch etc)
Opinions?
My opinion is that we should stick with the current policy, since is the team maintaining all packages(everyone can bump a pkg) it's useful to know what changed from a release to another, specially what dirty hacks, workarounds and dependencies were remove along with new features introduced that might not be enabled. Also it keeps easier to keep tracking bugs on upstream -> bnc. Luis -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org
Luis, On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 01:07 +0000, Luis Medinas wrote:
On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 12:02 +1100, Magnus Boman wrote:
Hello,
Currently, when doing package updates, we have some (strange) policy that we have to put in what changes upstream made (ie, bugfixes, new features etc).
All this information is already available in the NEWS/ChangeLog file for most packages.
Since this doesn't seem to be an openSUSE policy [1] I wonder why we enforce this for GNOME components?
Enforcing updates of the changelog makes it possible to check details of upstream changes with;
# rpm -q --changelog nautilus
By not enforcing these changes, one can do;
# cat /usr/share/doc/packages/nautilus/NEWS
I see little (if any) value in doing this, but it adds a lot of time when doing a package update, so I would like to change the policy to simple contain specific updates that the packager made (add/remove patch etc)
Opinions?
My opinion is that we should stick with the current policy, since is the team maintaining all packages(everyone can bump a pkg) it's useful to know what changed from a release to another, specially what dirty hacks, workarounds and dependencies were remove along with new features introduced that might not be enabled. Also it keeps easier to keep tracking bugs on upstream -> bnc.
I didn't mean that packagers shouldn't have to explain their "dirty hacks" etc in the changelog. I'm strictly talking about what's already available in NEWS/Changelog files, which is redundant information that is already available and a cause of wasting time, especially since I don't believe that a whole lot of people ever use it. Cheers, Magnus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org
Le vendredi 30 janvier 2009, à 12:02 +1100, Magnus Boman a écrit :
Hello,
Currently, when doing package updates, we have some (strange) policy that we have to put in what changes upstream made (ie, bugfixes, new features etc).
All this information is already available in the NEWS/ChangeLog file for most packages.
Since this doesn't seem to be an openSUSE policy [1] I wonder why we enforce this for GNOME components?
Can you ask on opensuse-packaging if there's a policy (strict or not) about this? FWIW, I find it annoying to fill this information too, but: + I like to be able to see the openSUSE changes and upstream changes in one place with the rpm changelog + it helps me review requests submitted to G:F. If I see that upstream dropped libgnomeui, but that the packages still depends on libgnomeui, I can tell the submitter. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org
Vincent, On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 02:10 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le vendredi 30 janvier 2009, à 12:02 +1100, Magnus Boman a écrit :
Hello,
Currently, when doing package updates, we have some (strange) policy that we have to put in what changes upstream made (ie, bugfixes, new features etc).
All this information is already available in the NEWS/ChangeLog file for most packages.
Since this doesn't seem to be an openSUSE policy [1] I wonder why we enforce this for GNOME components?
Can you ask on opensuse-packaging if there's a policy (strict or not) about this?
Will do.
FWIW, I find it annoying to fill this information too, but:
+ I like to be able to see the openSUSE changes and upstream changes in one place with the rpm changelog
Sure, but is it worth spending 80% on a single package update to have something like that? I mean, let's face it, not a whole lot of people ever use the changelog[1] for anything, except when it's asked for in bug reports to confirm that the proper version is installed.
+ it helps me review requests submitted to G:F. If I see that upstream dropped libgnomeui, but that the packages still depends on libgnomeui, I can tell the submitter.
This, I consider, is an upstream problem. If we (read you :-) can somehow convince upstream to publish Changelog/NEWS in a machine readable/predictable format, this can caught and an automated warning can be issued. I don't disagree that cleaning up the .spec files is nice, but (insert something that frustrates you here). We are already slow when it comes to updating to the latest upstream packages (especially when there are many packages, as with a new GNOME release) and I would appreciate if we could be quicker to update (which is one of the wins not having this policy) Cheers, Magnus [1] No, I have not performed a study and no, I don't have proper numbers. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org
Le vendredi 30 janvier 2009, à 16:35 +1100, Magnus Boman a écrit :
Vincent,
On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 02:10 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le vendredi 30 janvier 2009, à 12:02 +1100, Magnus Boman a écrit : + I like to be able to see the openSUSE changes and upstream changes in one place with the rpm changelog
Sure, but is it worth spending 80% on a single package update to have something like that? I mean, let's face it, not a whole lot of people ever use the changelog[1] for anything, except when it's asked for in bug reports to confirm that the proper version is installed.
(agree -- was just pointing one of my use cases)
+ it helps me review requests submitted to G:F. If I see that upstream dropped libgnomeui, but that the packages still depends on libgnomeui, I can tell the submitter.
This, I consider, is an upstream problem. If we (read you :-) can somehow convince upstream to publish Changelog/NEWS in a machine readable/predictable format, this can caught and an automated warning can be issued.
Heh. That's, hrm, unlikely to happen :/ At the GNOME level, this sounds difficult already, so imagine the non-GNOME packages that we maintain ;-) After thinking a bit about it. I'd be okay (if the openSUSE policy is fine with that) if we: + don't copy all that information there + provide an easy way to see what has changed (eg, provide a link to NEWS or ChangeLog) during the review. Not quite sure how to do that, though. + automatically check that NEWS and ChangeLog are packaged Also, thinking about it. We might to package all the ChangeLog-2.12 files that are used in some projects. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org
I can say that I frequently check the change logs, especially for CVE's to see which items have been addressed. The rpm changelog is both standard and universal. Steve On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Vincent Untz <vuntz@opensuse.org> wrote:
Le vendredi 30 janvier 2009, à 16:35 +1100, Magnus Boman a écrit :
Vincent,
On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 02:10 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le vendredi 30 janvier 2009, à 12:02 +1100, Magnus Boman a écrit : + I like to be able to see the openSUSE changes and upstream changes in one place with the rpm changelog
Sure, but is it worth spending 80% on a single package update to have something like that? I mean, let's face it, not a whole lot of people ever use the changelog[1] for anything, except when it's asked for in bug reports to confirm that the proper version is installed.
(agree -- was just pointing one of my use cases)
+ it helps me review requests submitted to G:F. If I see that upstream dropped libgnomeui, but that the packages still depends on libgnomeui, I can tell the submitter.
This, I consider, is an upstream problem. If we (read you :-) can somehow convince upstream to publish Changelog/NEWS in a machine readable/predictable format, this can caught and an automated warning can be issued.
Heh. That's, hrm, unlikely to happen :/ At the GNOME level, this sounds difficult already, so imagine the non-GNOME packages that we maintain ;-)
After thinking a bit about it. I'd be okay (if the openSUSE policy is fine with that) if we:
+ don't copy all that information there + provide an easy way to see what has changed (eg, provide a link to NEWS or ChangeLog) during the review. Not quite sure how to do that, though. + automatically check that NEWS and ChangeLog are packaged
Also, thinking about it. We might to package all the ChangeLog-2.12 files that are used in some projects.
Vincent
-- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org
-- GPG Key ID: C92EF367 / 1428 FE8E 1E07 DDA8 EFD7 195F DCCD F5B3 C92E F367 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org
On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 10:01 -0500, Steven Harms wrote:
I can say that I frequently check the change logs, especially for CVE's to see which items have been addressed. The rpm changelog is both standard and universal.
Most CVE fixes would add a patch which would show up in the rpm changelog. Not sure what "standard and universal" means though? Fedora, for instance, does not update their changelog with upstream changes. Cheers, Magnus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org
* Magnus Boman <captain.magnus@gmail.com> [01-30-09 00:36]:
Sure, but is it worth spending 80% on a single package update to have something like that? I mean, let's face it, not a whole lot of people ever use the changelog[1] for anything, except when it's asked for in bug reports to confirm that the proper version is installed.
I *frequently* consult the changelogs to see what differences to expect from a package upgrade :^) -- Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org
On 1/30/2009 at 2:02 AM, Magnus Boman <captain.magnus@gmail.com> wrote:
Enforcing updates of the changelog makes it possible to check details of upstream changes with;
# rpm -q --changelog nautilus
By not enforcing these changes, one can do;
# cat /usr/share/doc/packages/nautilus/NEWS
I see a big difference between those two variants. Not, as your package is installed, but if you check for example: http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/games/openSUSE_11.1/repodata/repov... You can see the changelog there even BEFORE you get the package downloaded and installed. This qualifies for me as a very good reason to have this information in the RPM Metadata. Dominique -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org
On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 12:02 +1100, Magnus Boman wrote:
Hello,
Currently, when doing package updates, we have some (strange) policy that we have to put in what changes upstream made (ie, bugfixes, new features etc).
All this information is already available in the NEWS/ChangeLog file for most packages.
Since this doesn't seem to be an openSUSE policy [1] I wonder why we enforce this for GNOME components?
AFAIR, this is an autobuild team policy. Can't say now for sure, but I think I've had submissions rejected in the past because of not including the upstream's NEWS, so I got used to add them always. for very long NEWS entries, you can just add a link to the NEWS file itself ($package-$version.news in ftp.gnome.org) -- Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo@novell.com> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org
participants (7)
-
Dominique Leuenberger -
Luis Medinas -
Magnus Boman -
Patrick Shanahan -
Rodrigo Moya -
Steven Harms -
Vincent Untz