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 Novell / SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Mads Martin Joergensen wrote:

* Richard Guenther [Jan 30. 2009 07:57]:

...

...

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.

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@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org