Dne 24. 02. 20 v 17:48 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): > Good Morning Everyone, > > This topic has already been discussed a few times over the past month, but Adam > Saleh, Nils Philippsen and myself have had the opportunity to invest some time > on it with the hope of making the packager's life simpler as well as making it > easier to build automation around our package maintenance. > > We have investigated a few ideas, the full list with their pros and cons can be > found in this document: https://hackmd.io/8pSwJidhTYel9euQqMEKpw?viev > If you have any questions about some of these, please ask them, we'll be happy > to answer them and potentially complete this document. > > > For both the release and the changelog fields we believe using RPM macros would > satisfy the requirements we have for opting-in/out: > - You can easily opt-in by using the macros > - You can easily opt-out by removing the macros from your spec file > > > For the changelog, we believe we have a potential good solution: > - The changelog will be automatically generated using an external `changelog` > file as well as the commit history > - When you opt-in, you will simply move the existing changelog to an external > file `changelog`, which is placed in the dist-git repo and add the > appropriate macro. I assume you are aware about my PR: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/942 > - Upon building, the macro will generate the changelog using all the commits > of the repo up to the last commit touching the `changelog` file. I proposed, that the changelog file is either included in the repository or it is not included (probably listed in .gitignore). So it is either used as it is or if later, then it is generated. You propose mixture if I understand it correctly. I.e. the changelog file is always present in the dist-git and it is always is used. But if there are more recent commits without changelog modifications, they are prepended to the changelog, but the changelog file itself stays untouched. E.g. if my latest commit modifies the changelog, the changelog as it is present in the repo will be used without any modifications. I like it. It is opt-in, because I have to place some macro into .spec file and it is even more or less bacward compatible, because the automation kicks in only if I don't maintain the changelog manually. > Of all > these commits it will only consider the commits following these rules: > - There are generally two approaches regarding what to include by default: > 1. commits touching only the `sources`, `.gitignore`, `dead.package` > files, `tests` folder will be ignored by default, i.e. a blacklist > 2. only commits touching the spec file or patches will be included by > default, i.e. a whitelist > ==> Which approach do you think is better/will work in most cases? > - empty commits (not touching any files) will be included on the assumption > that this is their purpose > - commits containing "magic keyword" (#changelog_exclude, > #changelog_include?) will be ignored or included as the case may be > - Finally the content of the changelog file specified will be appended to the > changelog generated from the git history > > > If you wanted to edit the changelog, you would: > - Generate the changelog locally via a command like: > `fedpkg generate-changelog > changelog` This also helps to completely modify the changelog and possible fix some past errors in git changelog or what not. > - Edit `changelog` as desired > - Commit and push the changes > > Since the macro will only consider the commits up to the first commit touching > `changelog` (in other words, the macro will only consider the commits after this > one) and include `changelog` file as is, your edits will appear in the RPM > changelog as you want. > > One thing to note is that rebuilds from the same commit will have the same > %changelog, they will not get a new entry. If you want a new changelog entry, > you have to create a new commit with the desired changelog entry as commit > message (the commit itself can be empty). > > > > However, for the release field, we are struggling a little bit more, two options > are more appealing to us: > > A) The release field is automatically generated using two elements: > - the number of commits at this version > - the number of builds at this commit > - the dist-tag being added after them > The release field would thus look like: > ``<number of commit at version>.<number of build at commit>%{dist}`` > > So we could have: (A, B, C and D being different commits) > A -- version: 0.9 -- release: ? > | > B -- version: 1.0 -- release: 1.0 > | > C -- version: 1.0 -- release: 2.0 > | > D -- version: 1.1 -- release: 1.0 > > A rebuild of the commit D, would lead to a release 1.1 (assuming the first one > succeeded)/ > > Pros: > - Easy to replicate locally > - Every changelog entry can be mapped to a `version-release` (No changes to the > packaging guidelines) > - Allows triggering two builds from the same commit without any manual change > (simplifies mass-rebuilds) > - Easy to link a certain build with a specific commit > - Easy to “guess” the next release value before triggering the build > > Cons: > - Old packages which are no longer receiving upstream releases may need > special care (for example if they are at the release -48 but only had 45 > commits leading to this) > - Relies on information from the build system for the build number (but can > be closely simulated locally since the <n_build> info is only used for > rebuilds) > - Upgrade path may be problematic if Fn is upgraded to version X with one > commit while Fn-1 is upgrade to version X with 2 commits (or more) > > > B) The release field is automatically generated taking existing builds in all > current Fedora releases (ie: rawhide, Fn, Fn-1...) into account. This means for > builds of the same epoch:version, find a new release that (if at all possible) > ensures upgradability from older Fedora versions to newer ones, adhering to the > structure of a release tag documented in the Versioning Guidelines[1]. Going > from the (RPM-wise) "latest build" that the new one should surpass, this can > mean bumping in the front (`pkgrel`) or the back (`minorbump`). > > This allows packages from "very stable" upstreams who haven't released in years > to still benefit from automatically generated releases. > > The following examples would use a macro for the release field as outlined in a > separate document[2]. > > Example #1 ("normal" release progression): > Rawhide has: 2.0-1.fc32 > F31 has: 1.0-1.fc31 > F30 has: 1.0-1.fc30 > > Next release in F31: 1.0-2.fc32 > > > Example #2 ("hotfix" in an older release, selected by an alternative macro (or > option) in the spec file): > Rawhide has: 2.0-1.fc32 > F31 has: 1.0-1.fc31 > F30 has: 1.0-1.fc30 > > Next release in F30: 1.0-1.fc30.1 > > Example #3 (pre-release, selected by an alternative macro (or option) in the > spec file): > Rawhide has: 2.0-1.fc32 > F31 has: 1.0-1.fc31 > F30 has: 1.0-1.fc30 > > Next release in Rawhide: 3.0-0.1.20200224git1234abcd > > > Pros: > - Allows triggering two builds from the same commit without manual > intervention > - Emulates what many maintainers do manually today for most use cases > - Can cater for pre-releases (e.g.: by offering different macros or macro > options for the different use cases) > > Cons: > - Needs the build system for information about builds in this and other Fedora > versions > - Not easy to reproduce locally because we don’t have machine-consumable > knowledge about other builds in e.g. the dist-git repo > - Does not allow to generate changelog entries with `version-release` > information for all commits (and this will require a change in our packaging > guidelines) > > > So these are the results of our current investigations, we are very much eager > to get your feedback on them and even more eager if you have ideas on how to > approach/solve some of the challenges mentioned here. I am not really sure about this. How do you envision this is going to be implemented? Is there going to be "release" file, similarly to changelog, which would help me to override this? Because, currently, it seems that both methods are going to need a lot of information from the build system. They will need to parse .spec file etc. I don't see this to be able to handle even a bit more complex stuff like e.g. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/blob/master/f/ruby.spec#_26 Vít > > Looking forward for the discussion, > > Pierre > For Adam, Nils and myself > > > > [1]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/ > [2]: https://hackmd.io/kuXOPe74RfepuztBz7pBsg > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
