On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 4:48 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 02:10:52PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 2:02 PM Ben Cotton <bcotton(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rpmautospec_by_Default
> Have we made sure that when Red Hat forks Fedora packages for RHEL
> that they don't truncate or eliminate the Git history anymore? Because I would
> personally be very displeased if my historical attribution went away
> because of broken processes like the one used to fork all the Fedora
> Linux 34 packages for CentOS Stream 9.
I can't speak for the RH folks who do the forking… It'd be great if
somebody who knows how that's done could answer.
Fedora is already using rpmautospec widely enough that (if it was to
be problem at all), it must already be a problem.
At the level of specific solutions, obviously the obvious answer is to
keep the git history. It's in general a great of source of information
and discarding that is just an error. But if somebody were really to do that,
it's fairly trivial to undo the conversion and get a static changelog
again by inserting the output of 'rpmautospec changelog' in the %changelog
section.
As they are the most prominent downstream we have, I would like this
resolved before changing Fedora's defaults.
At the time we branched from Fedora Linux 34, there were very few
packages using rpmautospec and I don't think any that were kept used
rpmautospec. Now it is very obvious it would be a problem, so I would
like that fixed first. CentOS and RHEL infrastructure needs to account
for it properly and not gut the Git history.
--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!