F-14 Branched report: 20100923 changes

Peter Robinson pbrobinson at gmail.com
Fri Sep 24 16:43:47 UTC 2010

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

For the fact that its gone from version X to version Y yes. For the
actual application changed between version X and version Y they can
see the ChangeLog that's in the %doc or alternatively check the
release notes for the new version upstream (which can be easily
provided as a link in the rpm changelog). I just don't see the point
in duplicating hundreds of line of upstream release notes in the rpm
changelog when all that's actually changed in the rpm is that we've
gone from release X to release Y.


More information about the devel mailing list