F-14 Branched report: 20100923 changes

[Toshio Kuratomi]

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.  We could generate one of the changelogs automatically, though.  I would
much prefer to generate the git log from the rpm changelog than vice-versa,
though.  THe git log is going to contain more entries than the rpm changelog
as little things get fixed from time to time that deserve a commit in git
but don't deserve a mention in the rpm changelog.


This should be pretty easy to do in fedpkg commit by having that perform its
fedpkg clog action and then automatically adding that information into what
the git message will be... in fact, I haven't used fedpkg commit, it might
already do this.  If not, care to send a patch?

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100924/37a17209/attachment.bin