On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 11:40 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 18:01:57 -0500, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 05:37:29PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > > Oh, no. *Bad* idea. It's an attack on the symptom, not the problem. > > > > No, it's a *good* idea IMO. Problem is it does't go all the way. > > WTH are changelogs doing in .spec files?!? This is the job of the version > > control system, not of packaging specifications. > > Uhm, they document package changes. Do you document your changes inside of the source code? In my understanding, *specs are one part of rpm's sources. > > It probably comes from the (misguided) school of thought that includes > > $Log$ in source files... > > No. I disagree. Adding %changelogs to specs is not any different from $Log$. Having an entry in an rpm-header containing the last change might be useful for users being interested in the reason for a new rpm release, but I fail to understand why having a full %changelog-history inside of rpms or metadata files is useful. Ralf
