On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 09:40 -0600, Tommy Reynolds wrote: > Uttered "Paul W. Frields" <stickster@xxxxxxxxx>, spake thus: > > > On the other hand, a RPM %changelog often has more than one > > explanatory line for details. I will try my hand at this one if > > you agree, since I don't want to try your patience, and since I > > want to see if I understand the concept well enough to DIY. (DIM?) > > Go ahead and welcome. I just didn't have time to investigate line > wrapping the %changelog entries, but I'd be happy for your to take a > swing. > > > I suppose, thanks to your display of XML skillz, we can even validate > > this info during the build process to make sure nothing breaks! Sweet. > > BTW, order matters in the %changelog entries. I always take the > version and release numbers from the very first <revision> element. > That's why there is that mandatory, only-one-alternative "ordered=" > attribute; it's really documentation. Cool, that means I grokked it right. Although that means revision histories will be written differently than they are now, that's not a problem. DocBook doesn't mandate an order for them, so any way we want to do them is acceptable. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
