Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> %changelog -f <changelog_file>
> %changelog -g <git_repo>
And, I suppose:
%changelog -s <Subversion_repo>
%changelog -c <CVS_repo>
%changelog -m <Monotone_repo>
%changelog -h <Mercurial_repo>
%changelog -a <Arch_repo>
%changelog -b <Bazaar_repo>
... and so on, right? And every time someone comes up with a new version
control system, RPM would grow support for a new protocol and a new
changelog format? OK, but what format should it read when the -f option
is used? I'm not aware of a formal standard format for hand-written
changelogs.
What should RPM do if it encounters a parse error in the upstream
changelog? Should it fail to build the package?
> %release_notes -f <release_notes_file>
And what would that mean? Should that entire web page be copied into the
update announcement? Including stylesheets and images? Or should the
update announcement only contain a link to the release notes?
> The packager has to do two things (point RPM at the upstream changelog
> and the release notes), once, and the other tools should work from
> those forever more.
So you expect upstream to keep their release notes in an ever-growing
document at a static URL? Or do you expect them to adhere to a strict
pattern so that you can insert "%{version}" in the URL? How common are
those approaches? Some projects do release announcements in a blog-like
style without any particular pattern for the URLs.
> You could extend this later so it parses out specific version
> information from the release notes, but the above covers about 80% of
> it.
What language should it parse then? I'm not aware of a formal standard
format for release notes. All you can assume is that it will be some
kind of vaguely HTML-like tag soup. It may even be valid HTML, but HTML
doesn't contain anything that would help you extract the release notes
for a specific version.
Björn Persson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
