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

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