On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 02:44:34PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 07:01:16PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: >> > Is it really necessary to include entire package change logs in the >> > rpm changelog? What is wrong with referencing either the included >> > changelog or a URL to a changelog that people can go and reference. I >> > remember this being discussed ages ago but I'm not sure if there was a >> > packaging policy instigated. >> >> Along the same lines, why should we have RPM %changelog at all? The >> git repo should maintain the changelog which can be automatically >> integrated with the binary RPM at build time. At the moment we have >> the same information in at least 2 places. >> > We need to have the rpm changelog in the rpm so that the end user's can see > it. For the fact that its gone from version X to version Y yes. For the actual application changed between version X and version Y they can see the ChangeLog that's in the %doc or alternatively check the release notes for the new version upstream (which can be easily provided as a link in the rpm changelog). I just don't see the point in duplicating hundreds of line of upstream release notes in the rpm changelog when all that's actually changed in the rpm is that we've gone from release X to release Y. Peter -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
