On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 08:51 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wednesday 05 July 2006 16:13, seth vidal wrote: > > I'd love to hear more comments on this > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197699 > > > > > > I've read the guidelines and I don't see where it mandates the format of > > the changelog lines. > > After reading all the comments, my opinion is > > A) Changelog format should not be a MUST, we could allow for some flexibility > in the packager. > > B) There could be a generic 'The changelog SHOULD have the version-release > noted in it somewhere' rule, where that version-release winds up is up to the > packager, and its a should rather than a Must. Reviews shouldn't be blocked > because of this, its just a suggested practice. I fail to see how this would be helpful. All this (and the warning in rpmlint) does, is to add confusion. I prefer strict and clear guidelines. I.e. either 1) CHANGELOGNAME is a freeform string. You can stick anything into it you might find useful. 2) Mandate a text format for CHANGELOGNAME. No exceptions allowed. Ralf
