https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1728381 Cole Robinson <crobinso@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(crobinso@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #11 from Cole Robinson <crobinso@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Alex Williamson from comment #10) > > > > > - Changelog in prescribed format. > > > > > > > > Changelog lines should be individually prefixed with '-' and contain a > > > > version string > > > > at the end. > > > > > > > > Your changelog there looks more like it should be a NEWS.md file which you > > > > can ship > > > > as %doc. Using that is better for upstream too IMO because other distros > > > > won't want a .spec file to be the canonical release notes. > > > > > > > > For Fedora spec the changelog should be the package version history so all > > > > of those > > > > entries should be trimmed except the most recent one basically. > > > > > > Fixed. What's present now is still entirely auto-generated from the git > > > log, as I think that is our canonical release notes. However, the > > > formatting now matches the Fedora requirements and we're rolling together > > > all the commit subjects between tags. I think this will allow me to merge > > > the upstream auto-generated spec file with the Fedora maintained one fairly > > > automatically, assuming it's good practice to maintain the logs for Fedora > > > specific rebuilds. > > > > Dealing with changelogs across upstream hosted spec and downstream is a pain. > > Most projects I work on just don't include a %changelog upstream. But > > whatever > > works for you as long as the format is appropriate for Fedora. > > Would it be considered bad practice in Fedora if the changelog is rewritten > between releases? For instance if the upstream auto-generation changes the > formatting or contents for previous releases (as I've done in 0.50), how > much, if any effort should we make in the Fedora package to retain released > changelog contents as-is, versus simply maintaining compliant formatting? > Same question for the Fedora specific changelog entries. Would it be > considered required or just best-effort to maintain, for example, a mass > rebuild 0.49-2 changelog entry when I upload 0.50? > Fedora guidelines say to have one changelog entry per Fedora build. However plenty of packages also trim changelogs after a certain time, rather than have lots of historical data there. Nothing enforces it, but if it can be helped I would try to not throw it away. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs > > Ok, yes, the previous srpm was generated from the upstream Makefile with a > local archive rather than directly using the github link. The contents are > the same, but I assume you're looking at md5sum between the two. I hadn't > really figured out this part of the process yet. For the version uploaded > below, I'm using 'spectool -g -R mdevctl.spec' to fetch the upstream source > and 'rpmbuild -bs --rmsource mdevctl.spec' to generate the srpm and cleanup > the upstream source tarball. Yes, the fedora-review tool does an md5 comparison. For packages I own upstream, I will upload the dist on release, then download it back and feed it to the package build, just to be sure. The only other change here is the changelog > format, which I hope doesn't churn your stomach or violate Fedora standards. > Thanks! > Haven't seen entries like that before but I think it's fine. Setting fedora-review+ . I will sponsor you too if needed -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-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/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
