Panu Matilainen píše v Út 27. 01. 2009 v 14:05 +0200: > On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Dan Horák wrote: > >> Would be trivial to add, sure. The question is, would it make any > >> difference to either > >> a) asking packagers to add pointer to existing %changelog when rebasing > >> packages > > > > There is a chance that the changelog attached in the source archive is > > developer oriented (based on CVS/SVN/whatever) while the web-based one > > is user oriented. > > I sense a misunderstanding here... what I meant is instead of just > the "update to x.y.z", drop in a link too - simply something like > (taking sqlite has an example): > > * Thu Jan 22 2009 Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@xxxxxxxxxx> - 3.6.10-1 > - update to 3.6.10 (http://www.sqlite.org/releaselog/3_6_10.html) > > Having something like that in the existing changelog would mean it's also > trivial to browse back in history, whereas a single tag would only point > to the current release. > Yes, there was a misunderstanding and your idea looks good. > >> b) have such a field in bodhi instead > > > > The keyword should be "automation". Why to copy&paste when it can be > > done by script. I can imagine a "hidden" field in spec (special comment > > like #changelog: http://....) that is transformed into a field in bodhi. > > It can be a macro in spec that gets evaluated before including in bodhi, > > etc. > > If such a thing is in the package, obviously it should be pulled > automatically by bodhi. You almost certainly need to copy-paste the link > once anyway - if the field only exists in bodhi then there's just one > copy-paste. Mind you, I'm not trying to shoot this down, just looking at > possibilities :) I am looking for possibilities too, so there is chance we will meet somewhere :-) Dan -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
