-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:51:57 +0200, Kevin wrote:
>
>> AIUI, the package changelog only really needs to contain what
you changed in
>> the specfile,
>
> Tell that all the package maintainers, who do it differently.
I think he was referring to a minimum ("only really needs"). If
you do more detailed changelogs, more power to you. I however
have changelog entries just because a BR was missing or such. I
don't see the need to add feature changes to the spec file which
sees the software as nothing more than a blob to be extracted
and commands run on. Another way: a hammer (spec file) doesn't
care what the nail (software) is used for, only that it's a
nail.
>> > Overall, however, what updates need is feedback from actual
testers before
>> > they are marked stable.
>>
>> That's really a separate issue from the lack of details.
>
> For me it isn't. I won't spend extra time on writing special
summaries
> for a test-update, if nobody contributes any testing. Once the
update has
> been marked stable, it's too late. It will be installed by
some users
> "blindly". They won't base any decision on reading the update
> description. Not even the list of affected bugzilla tickets in
bodhi
> implies that the fixes are correct or won't cause side-
effects. A
> minor feature addition might cause the software to crash in
untested
> environments. The update description doesn't add any quality.
It just
> adds some eye-candy and creates another place where the
packager can
> fail (and miss details or include wrong information, for
example).
> Packaging quality depends on other factors, such as the amount
> of time a package maintainer spends on cherry-picking upstream
releases
> or snapshots, self-contributed bug-fixes and testing prior to
release.
Maybe an updates-testing report (like the daily Rawhide Report
which I scan even though I don't run Rawhide yet) could do some
good?
> Same applies to online changelog URLs. Tracking down locations
on upstream
> websites (and verifying them with every update) is nothing
else than an
> unnecessary burden. Just as upstream authors don't maintain
their
> tarball ChangeLogs always, there is no guarantee that an
online
> changelog would be up-to-date.
>
I have a folder full of bookmarks for important sites for the
packages I maintain. Works well enough. I imagine it would scale
well too.
- --Ben
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkqES98ACgkQiPi+MRHG3qRZMgCgvYyN25TVxakVs78bj5R7Le97
xIwAn0Ijhu97mc/HDeU4pIGDGS3QBrK2
=EtHT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
