Re: Trimming (or obsoleting) %changelog?

[Dan Fruehauf <malkodan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hey,

I tend to be against trimming. I was just looking at the binutils changelog (goes back to 1997):
$ rpm -q --changelog binutils | wc -c
54984

That's around 50K, and compressed (RPMs are compressed):
$ rpm -q --changelog binutils | gzip | wc -c
15552

15K is nothing. Really. I like to see the whole history of a package, it's nice and fun.

Perhaps other packages has larger changelogs. I guess common sense is what we should use, but generally speaking I'd say don't trim, as it doesn't really matter and it's cleaner to have a full changelog, rather than a story which starts somewhere in the middle.

Just out of curiosity, what packages have huge changelogs?

BR
Dan Fruehauf.

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Richard Hughes wrote:

> Is there any guidance as when to trim %changelog down to size? Some
> packages have thousands of lines of spec file dating back over 15
> years which seem kinda redundant now we're using git.

To me, common sense dictates that it's perfectly ok to trim the length of
the changelog as long as items that are relevant to the current release are
kept intact.  Use your best judgement where that position lies.

-- rex

--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel