On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 12:40 PM Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 9:31 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 9:27 AM Björn Persson <Bjorn@rombobjörn.se> wrote: > > > > > > In a package review I came across a changelog entry in this format: > > > > > > * Thu Jul 25 12:24:56 CEST 2019 Name <nn@xxxxxxxxxxx> - 0.1.0-1 > > > > > > RPM appears to be able to parse that, but the time of day and the > > > timezone code aren't in the format prescribed by the Packaging > > > Guidelines. On the other hand it's not clear that the policy is meant > > > to explicitly forbid such precise timestamps, as it seems mostly > > > concerned with the placement of the version and release: > > > > > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs > > > > > > Does the policy need to be updated to allow a time of day and a timezone > > > code? Or does it need to be clarified to clearly forbid them? > > > > > > Ideally the date/time format variants that RPM accepts should be > > > documented somewhere – in a spec file syntax specification perhaps – and > > > the guidelines should point to that specification. > > > > > > > This is a new changelog format supported since RPM 4.14. > > > > It was added in this commit: > > https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/57f94a582602f0353cdb17a02dc12c4461d4f32d > > > > It is supported in all released versions of Fedora, and it is supported in EL8. > > Since many of us still use RHEL and CentOS 6 and 7 as targets of > backported Fedora tools, why would we want to even use time of day? > RPM is such a critical system for legacy and supported releases I'd be > extremely reluctant to expect them to be compatible with what is > essentially an extraneous feature, namely the support of timestamps in > changelogs where they serve no significant functional use. Why publish > timestamps there? By that logic, no feature introduced in RPM would be used until a decade after it is introduced. Sorry, I'm not willing to wait that long. The granular timestamps are useful for reproducibility stuff, as well as providing an accurate representation of the temporal history. As a matter of fact, pretty much all packaging formats *except* RPM require full timestamps in changelogs. Even SUSE changes files include full timestamps, they're just lost on conversion to RPM changelog at build time (though that'll stop being true soon). That said, if *you* want to use the legacy changelog date stamp style, you can. I still do for many of my packages that are intended to be EL7 compatible. But for many of us, EL7 is not our concern, so the new format is perfectly usable. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-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/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
