İsmail Dönmez wrote:

On 02 Feb 09:59, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

...

On Tuesday 2016-02-02 08:25, Michael Ströder wrote:

...

Jan Engelhardt wrote:

...

Sometimes I really have to cringe at some specfiles and wonder how they got through the opensuse factory review team. I do not want to say openSUSE is the sloppiest distros of all, but claiming openSUSE has too high a specfile standard is just untrue.

Personally two things annoying me:

1. Some reviewers insist on adding a lot of lines to .changes files claiming that there are common practices to do so. [...] for all upstream changes to fit into .changes when simply updating to a new upstream release.

That is utterly nonsensical to do. Call those maintainers out. 1. The package maintainer may not have as much understanding what each upstream changelog entry is supposed to mean 2. The reader of rpm -q --changelog may have even lesser understanding than that 3. Avoid redundant information.

Especially point #3 mandates that the full changelog with technobabble should, if so desired, provided via %files, and the rpm-changelog be short and concise. Like freshcode.club messages. Because #2.

Just to add my point here. We don't want the ChangeLog, nor output of the git log, svn log whatever. We want the useful stuff which is mostly included in the NEWS file and/or the release announcement.

Sorry, given the wide range of variants in upstream release this advice is very blurry. Ciao, Michael.