rpms/perl-Date-Simple/EL-6 perl-Date-Simple.spec,1.13,1.14

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at freenet.de
Tue May 11 15:58:36 UTC 2010


On 05/11/2010 05:48 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
> On 11/05/10 15:47, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 05/11/2010 04:21 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
>>> Author: pghmcfc
>>>
>>> Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Date-Simple/EL-6
>>> In directory cvs01.phx2.fedoraproject.org:/tmp/cvs-serv12558/EL-6
>>>
>>> Modified Files:
>>>     perl-Date-Simple.spec
>>> Log Message:
>>> Minor clean-ups
>>>
>>>
>>> Index: perl-Date-Simple.spec
>>> ===================================================================
>>> RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Date-Simple/EL-6/perl-Date-Simple.spec,v
>>> retrieving revision 1.13
>>> retrieving revision 1.14
>>> diff -u -p -r1.13 -r1.14
>>> --- perl-Date-Simple.spec    26 Jul 2009 05:33:20 -0000    1.13
>>> +++ perl-Date-Simple.spec    11 May 2010 14:21:45 -0000    1.14
>>
>>> -* Thu Feb 26 2009 Fedora Release 
>>> Engineering<rel-eng at lists.fedoraproject.org>   - 3.03-2
>>> +* Thu Feb 26 2009 Fedora Release 
>>> Engineering<rel-eng at lists.fedoraproject.org>   3.03-2
>>>    - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Mass_Rebuild
>>
>> What are you trying to achieve?
>
> Just making the changelog format consistent within the spec file.
>
>> I am not aware of any rule mandating "<email>  version".
>> Conversely, Fedora has been using<email>  - "version" for ages.
>> cf. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
>
> I know; the "-" is optional.
>
>> That said, IMO, all your changes do is rendering diffs between different
>> distros less readable.
>
> True, at the expense of a slight readability improvement (IMHO) in the 
> current spec. 
Stylisic bikesheding, without benefits.

> Shouldn't be a problem going forward though, and if I push an update 
> for an older release, that'll get the same changes too, which will 
> help with the diffs.
Consider all my packages to be "off-limits"/"taboo" for you.

Ralf




More information about the devel mailing list