Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (753 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-factory] Re: [opensuse-packaging] Packaging Guideline enforcement
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 09:29:27PM +0200, Philipp Thomas wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:54:46 +0200, Andreas Jaeger <aj@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
[ 8< ]
# PATCH-FEATURE-OPENSUSE -- use separate symbol version for Owl
extensions - lnussel@xxxxxxx

You could generate the patch tag from the data in the patch but not
the other way round. Our kernel maintainers have a hard requirement
for commented patches, why can't we have that for the rest of the
distribution?

As other teams might have found a different but also working approach.

For Samba we ensure to have a header in each patch. By this header
we're able to identify the author and the addressed issue.

In the case of an upstream patch this is identical to the output of git
show <object> and the name of the object also defines the filename.

For patches we're still working on or which aren't applicable upstream
we use an own self describing name but ensure to keep the same patch
header.

This allows people pulling the source rpm easily to identify the author
and the subject of a particular patch.

But these are all details other teams don't care about. As we don't
care much about how the x.org or kernel developers maintain their
packages.

Is this the result cause we're all this ignorant?

No, I believe this result is caused by different experiences and needs.
And a huge, huge amount of history.

Due to our experience the package change log file has to fulfill
different needs:

a) In the case of an update users need to see what's new and got added/
fixed.

b) We reuse the same text to concatenate the update notification
messages.

Cheers,

Lars
--
Lars Müller [ˈlaː(r)z ˈmʏlɐ]
Samba Team + SUSE Labs
SUSE Linux, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
< Previous Next >