Re: Optional %changelog (was: F38 proposal: Rpmautospec by Default (System-Wide Change proposal))

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

 



On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 11:05 PM Maxwell G <maxwell@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I'll bite :). I changed the subject accordingly.
>
> On Tue Oct 24, 2023 at 00:31 +0200, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
>
> > Packaging become an automatized task, and maintainers don't pay
> > attention to %changelog beauty so they simply generate it from git-log
> > (but I'd claim that git-log != %changelog).
>
> I tend to agree. A package's git log and %changelog have different
> purposes and cater to different audiences. The former focusses on
> developers. Each commit should each contain a single logical change to
> the code in distgit (specfile/patches/sources) with body text to justify
> the change as appropriate. The %changelog is a user-visible summary that
> should only mention user-visible changes and not have extra information
> related to the development itself. For simpler packages, combining these
> two logs via rpmautospec (with the ability to [skip changelog] commits)
> can work well, but in other cases, including every single commit message
> can create a %changelog full of garbage or otherwise confuse packagers.
>
> > %changelog become one of the most painful maintainers' headache :)
> >
> > What do you think about a static changelog like:
> >
> >     %changelog
> >     * See https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/<PKG>/commits/rawhide
> >
> > Aren't we ready to admit (something like) this is enough?
>
> The %changelog is supposed to follow a specific format, as per the
> guidelines, and the datestamps are used to set $SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH.
> Replacing the entire changelog with this type of text would break that,
> and I think having a (potentially flawed) %changelog generated from the
> git log is better than none at all.
>

I'm also generally opposed to dropping the changelog since it is the
main method of providing attribution to all contributors past and
present to a package when it is redistributed, especially over the
mirror networks, ISOs, etc.

Remember that our version control system *does not matter* because
it's not how sources are *actually* delivered. That's the SRPMs that
are built and shipped alongside the binary packages.




--
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
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue




[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