Re: What would it take to drop release and changelog from our spec files? (and do we want to?)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 8:20 PM Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 9:46 pm, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > OpenSUSE proved years and years ago that dropping %changelog is
> > possible, easy and desirable.  We should do that IMHO.
>
> They still have %changelog at the bottom of each spec file, but as the
> last line of the file. The actual changelog is stored as a separate
> .changes file. That's a *lot* better than what Fedora does now, because
> it makes it way easier to scroll through the spec file. But getting rid
> of the changelog entirely would be even nicer. :)
>

openSUSE needs the changes file because the integrated VCS in their
build system is awful. History is not able to be preserved across
submissions to projects, so the only complete artifact of history is
that file. If you want an example of a distribution that completely
eliminated the management of an RPM changelog, look at Mageia (and its
ancestor, Mandriva). Their Dist-SVN system dynamically generated
changelogs from the SVN log.

However, they had two properties that we don't have with Git, and we
need some analogues for that:

* Dist-SVN is still SVN, and that means the log data can be edited
without editing the revision itself. This means the message could be
changed after the fact and the next build would incorporate it.
* Dist-SVN relied on tags of successful builds to track the
checkpoints for changelog generation and did not use branches in any
meaningful capacity, so the history was always fully linear.

I think any successful equivalent of that for Dist-Git will require us
to emulate these two properties somehow. My thinking is that annotated
tags would be the right way to allow for changelogs to be set without
the complexity of figuring out commit filtering. The annotation must
be editable. If not, this won't work. We have to have a way to let
people clean up changelogs. I think we can enforce linear tracking
within a branch for Koji to generate Release values, but it's going to
be tricky, given the contortions to the history that Git allows.



--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux