Sascha Peilicke wrote:
CC'ing opensuse-packaging@
On 05/28/2013 10:00 AM, Michael Ströder wrote:
I think in the case of a simple update due to a new upstream release, especially with a module used by developers, it's the most appropriate change note to just reference exact release number of the new upstream version.
The following two approaches are IMO completely wrong:
1. Copy&paste the whole possibly lengthy change log of upstream.
Sure, but the more important details should be added.
2. Summarize the change log of upstream release likely leading to incomplete and therefore useless information.
It's anything but useless, especially if there's a potential behavior change.
Sorry, but a packager is often not able to judge which details are important and which are not. So it boils down to: 1. copy&paste the whole possibly lengthy change log of upstream.
The changelog of a package IMO should only mention
1. local patches, backports etc. (most important)
2. changes to spec files, package build options etc.
3. One-line notes about relationship to upstream release.
4. Known side effects on other packages.
Agreed on all of those :-)
5. In rare cases changes of upstream code in case upstream code does not provide a detailed change log.
So you really want people to first download the RPM, unrpm it and then search for a ChangeLog or CHANGES or NEWS file? I think it is better to allow users to use the same process they already know, namely "rpm -q --changelog $foo.rpm" and get something meaningful.
I don't see the real difference. In case of package python-ldap the CHANGES file is installed here: /usr/share/doc/packages/python-ldap/CHANGES Especially when using a 3rd-party Python module I will never ever rely on platform-specific output of rpm -q --changelog to learn about changes in the upstream module. Upstram changelog is always the only authoritative information source! If you're a developer looking at anything else summed up by 3rd party is really stupid! Ciao, Michael.