Best practices wrt. Changelog entries in spec file (upstream vs. specfile)

[Joost Soeterbroek]

I meant to send this to fedora-extras list, not fedora-devel list, sorry

Joost

Joost Soeterbroek wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have a question regarding Changelog entries in spec files. When 
> packaging for a new upstream version of a given package you have to deal 
> with 2 different changelog informations:
> 
>  1) upstream/source specific changelog information
>  2) spec file/packager specific changelog information
> 
> I am unsure how best to deal with both of these. The FE guidelines 
> regarding Changelogs in 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines only mentions spec 
> file specific changelog info, but says nothing about upstream. I do 
> think it is relevant to include upstream changelog also.
> 
> As an example, I have just bumped the heartbeat package in Fedora Extras 
> from 2.0.4-2 to 2.0.5-1. I ended up using a combination of minuses for 
> the package specific changelog entries and indented plusses for the 
> upstream changelog which seemed acceptable to rpmlint, as in:
> 
> %changelog
> * Date Name Packager
> - package changelog
>   + upstream changelog
> 
> Example for heartbeat package:
> 
> %changelog
> * Thu Apr 27 2006  Joost Soeterbroek <fedora at soeterbroek.com> - 2.0.5-1
> - upstream version 2.0.5
> - removed patch2 - ownership of /heartbeat/crm/cib.xml is no longer
>   set in cts/CM_LinuxHAv2.py.in
>   + Version 2.0.5 - significant bug fixes and a few feature deficits fixed
>   + various portability fixes
>   + enable GUI to run with pygtk 2.4
>   + significant GUI improvements and speedups
> 
> Comments,ideas?
> 
> Joost <fedora at soeterbroek.com>
>