On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 11:23:35AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 11:17 AM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 31. 12. 22 15:07, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 5:17 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > > >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 4:48 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > > >> <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 02:10:52PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > >>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 2:02 PM Ben Cotton <bcotton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rpmautospec_by_Default > > >>>> Have we made sure that when Red Hat forks Fedora packages for RHEL > > >>>> that they don't truncate or eliminate the Git history anymore? Because I would > > >>>> personally be very displeased if my historical attribution went away > > >>>> because of broken processes like the one used to fork all the Fedora > > >>>> Linux 34 packages for CentOS Stream 9. > > >>> > > >>> I can't speak for the RH folks who do the forking… It'd be great if > > >>> somebody who knows how that's done could answer. > > >>> > > >>> Fedora is already using rpmautospec widely enough that (if it was to > > >>> be problem at all), it must already be a problem. > > >>> > > >>> At the level of specific solutions, obviously the obvious answer is to > > >>> keep the git history. It's in general a great of source of information > > >>> and discarding that is just an error. But if somebody were really to do that, > > >>> it's fairly trivial to undo the conversion and get a static changelog > > >>> again by inserting the output of 'rpmautospec changelog' in the %changelog > > >>> section. > > >>> > > >> > > >> As they are the most prominent downstream we have, I would like this > > >> resolved before changing Fedora's defaults. > > >> > > >> At the time we branched from Fedora Linux 34, there were very few > > >> packages using rpmautospec and I don't think any that were kept used > > >> rpmautospec. Now it is very obvious it would be a problem, so I would > > >> like that fixed first. CentOS and RHEL infrastructure needs to account > > >> for it properly and not gut the Git history. > > > > > > We can look into it, but at the moment this is unlikely to change on > > > the CentOS Stream/RHEL side. > > > > Are the packages imported on SRPM level with the changelogs rendered? > > > > They are not. It's done using distrobaker[1], which syncs Git content > and lookaside data. > > Example commit: > https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/pipewire/-/commit/67142e715ecacbf1c94c4d6f8000ef113c1e7c92 > > [1]: https://github.com/fedora-eln/distrobaker I don't think that changes in Fedora should be held hostage by some downstream utils. We know that the problem is solvable and in fact not hard at all. We certainly can notify RHEL maintainers about this, which I did right now [1], but actual implementation is something that we have no control of from the Fedora side. [1] https://github.com/fedora-eln/distrobaker/issues/12 Zbyszek _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
