On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 01:00:35PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > I disagree. Adding %changelogs to specs is not any different from $Log$. > > Depends on what $Log$ expands to. You can put very useful comments in > there which make a good reading. And everyone without immediate access to > CVS would benefit from such comments, because they are included in source > tarballs. See, same argument people give for $Log$. As I initially said, just like the $Log$ comments are misguided, so are complete changelogs in .spec files. Useful comments that are akin to comments in a regular source files are commonly included in .spec files. Those are fine, nobody argues agaist them. Changelog entries are something else, and they just don't belong there. If they are needed, they should just be in a separate file, but I suspect a link to a cvsweb/viewcvs for the CVS repository of the .spec file would be enough. -- Dimi.
