On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 13:57 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 08:40:04 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> That's pretty much the exact *opposite* of what I put in the changelog,
> FWIW.
It is no news that in recent years some people have pushed their own
agenda about what to put into which changelog. I can't do anything about
that.
> For me, that stuff goes in the git commit message
You don't use "fedpkg clog"?
Nope. I hand write every type of changelog (upstream changelog, package
changelog, git commit message, Bodhi description).
> fill in is *why*). What goes in the package changelog is changes
that
> actually make a concrete difference to a *user* of the package. They
> don't give a damn about the BuildRequires changing.
Rest assured, they do care, because added/removed BuildRequires might
enable/disable features, change behavior due to using different
backend libs, affect the look and feel or cause regression (such as
when building with gtk3 instead of gtk2 or vice versa).
Then in relevant cases I'd write about *that*. I wouldn't say "changed
BuildRequires: gtk2-devel to BuildRequires: gtk3-devel". I'd say "Build
against GTK+ 3", and maybe break out any known specific functionality
changes that caused in additional lines.
But if all I did was add an additional BuildRequires that upstream now
needs for the test suite to work or whatever, I'm not going to mention
that in the package changelog, it goes in the commit message, for me.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net