Le Mar 2 février 2010 11:35, Kevin Kofler a écrit : > > Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >> That is your interpretation. I see nothing on this page to support this >> claim. And actually it is contrary to format #3 logic, since its main >> difference with other changelog formats is that the version is not part of >> the entry header, so there's no reason to limit one entry to one version > > It's blatantly obvious that all these formats have one thing in common: > there's one entry per new EVR. Again, this is your interpretation > Our automated tools (e.g. make clog as > already pointed out by Michael Schwendt) also expect that. IIRC when this guideline was written rpm devs complained the EVR was never supposed to be in the changelog header, it was supposed to end at the email mode and the EVR was an emacs rpm mode addition. Nervertheless FPC chose to accept existing practices. This changelog style conforms to the existing spec, it has been in use in Fedora for several years, it may surprise you, but changing the spec retroactively is not the way to prove your point. -- Nicolas Mailhot -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
