30 Jan
2009
30 Jan
'09
05:44
Hello,
I've noticed that a lot of packages going in to Factory does not have
"proper" Changelog entries as explained to me (ie, copy redundant
information from NEWS/Changelog entries upstream and put it in
<packagename>.changes).
My question is, do we have a project wide policy for this, or would it
be enough to add what has been done by the package updater (ie, update
to version x.y.z, add/remove patch etc)?
Personally, I am in favor of not having to put it what changed upstream,
since in most cases, this would be contained in a NEWS/Changelog file
anyway.
Thanks,
Magnus
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org
30 Jan
30 Jan
06:57
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Magnus Boman wrote:
Hello,
I've noticed that a lot of packages going in to Factory does not have
"proper" Changelog entries as explained to me (ie, copy redundant
information from NEWS/Changelog entries upstream and put it in
<packagename>.changes).
My question is, do we have a project wide policy for this, or would it
be enough to add what has been done by the package updater (ie, update
to version x.y.z, add/remove patch etc)?
Personally, I am in favor of not having to put it what changed upstream,
since in most cases, this would be contained in a NEWS/Changelog file
anyway.
Well, there have been requests and (internal?) policy that an entry
with just
* New upstream version 1.2.3
is not appropriate and that we indeed _should_ paste in (IMHO
redundant and not appropriate for the rmp .changes) contents from
NEWS/Changelog.
So - we are just doing what is requested.
Yes, I think that the rpm .changes is to document _packaging_ changes
and not package changes.
Richard.
--
Richard Guenther <rguenther(a)suse.de>
Novell / SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org
09:06
* Richard Guenther <rguenther(a)suse.de> [Jan 30. 2009 07:57]:
Back when I was in-house I advocated to copy Changes, NEWS, whereever
the changelog for the software itself is, and I still do. It's very
convienient to be able to access this information when off-line, etc.
For sheer convienience it's great.
Besides. It's the changes to the software, hence the package. If you
dont want it, it should be called package-container changes.
--
Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk
"Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic
and totally illogical, with just a little bit more effort?"
-- A. P. J.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org
I've
noticed that a lot of packages going in to Factory does not have
"proper" Changelog entries as explained to me (ie, copy redundant
information from NEWS/Changelog entries upstream and put it in
<packagename>.changes).
My question is, do we have a project wide policy for this, or would it
be enough to add what has been done by the package updater (ie, update
to version x.y.z, add/remove patch etc)?
Personally, I am in favor of not having to put it what changed upstream,
since in most cases, this would be contained in a NEWS/Changelog file
anyway.
Well, there have been requests and (internal?) policy that an entry
with just
* New upstream version 1.2.3
is not appropriate and that we indeed _should_ paste in (IMHO
redundant and not appropriate for the rmp .changes) contents from
NEWS/Changelog.
So - we are just doing what is requested.
Yes, I think that the rpm .changes is to document _packaging_ changes
and not package changes.
09:59
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Mads Martin Joergensen wrote:
* Richard Guenther <rguenther(a)suse.de> [Jan 30.
2009 07:57]:
Back when I was in-house I advocated to copy Changes, NEWS, whereever
the changelog for the software itself is, and I still do. It's very
convienient to be able to access this information when off-line, etc.
For sheer convienience it's great.
Yeah. Sort of. For convenience I like the Debian way that has
/usr/share/doc/$package/changelog.Debian
in addition to recommended packaging of
/usr/share/doc/$package/{ChangeLog,NEWS,README} (or whatever it is
called)
The changelog.Debian mentions package-container changes _and_ software
changes that fix reported bugs (with a #1234 marking, Debian
auto-closes bugs on checkin via parsing the changelog.Debian).
Richard.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org
I've
noticed that a lot of packages going in to Factory does not have
"proper" Changelog entries as explained to me (ie, copy redundant
information from NEWS/Changelog entries upstream and put it in
<packagename>.changes).
My question is, do we have a project wide policy for this, or would it
be enough to add what has been done by the package updater (ie, update
to version x.y.z, add/remove patch etc)?
Personally, I am in favor of not having to put it what changed upstream,
since in most cases, this would be contained in a NEWS/Changelog file
anyway.
Well, there have been requests and (internal?) policy that an entry
with just
* New upstream version 1.2.3
is not appropriate and that we indeed _should_ paste in (IMHO
redundant and not appropriate for the rmp .changes) contents from
NEWS/Changelog.
So - we are just doing what is requested.
Yes, I think that the rpm .changes is to document _packaging_ changes
and not package changes. 
1 Feb
1 Feb
18:34
Mads Martin Joergensen <mmj(a)mmj.dk> writes:
Back when I was in-house I advocated to copy Changes,
NEWS, whereever
the changelog for the software itself is, and I still do. It's very
convienient to be able to access this information when off-line, etc.
For sheer convienience it's great.
I consider it very unconvienient esp. because contents and format of
said files look different in all these upstream packages. I'd rather
would like us to summarize upstream changes consistently. This would
mean real work and nobody dares to ask for it...
Besides. It's the changes to the software, hence
the package. If you
dont want it, it should be called package-container changes.
Otherwise Richard is right that .changes should mostly about packaging
related changes, and, from there concerning a perfect GNU package you
should just reference
http://www.gnu.org/software/<package>/NEWS.<version>
or something very similar.
--
Karl Eichwalder
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org
4647
days inactive
4649
days old
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Karl Eichwalder -
Mads Martin Joergensen -
Magnus Boman -
Richard Guenther