Hi Emmanouil, On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 08:07:22PM +0300, Emmanouil Kiagias wrote: > Hello Andreas, > > I have a question about the automatic changelog entry. As we said in some > previous discussions the changelog entry is injected between some *flags* > in the changelog like: * start automatically injected changes * [entry > here] * end automatically injected changes *. For the moment the Makefile > fails(printing a proper message) in case it does not find any of the 2 > flags(start/end). Also it fails in case it does not find a tasks.<json> > containing the dependencies from the previous release(so it can not perform > the comparison). Should I let it as is or make it optional? I mean if any > of the above cases occurs, the Makefile should fail or just print a warning > message and generate the orig.tar.gz anyway?
I think it is reasonable to fail with a warning. I'm not fully sure whether we finally really need the * start/end automatically injected changes * markers - we could agree upon making this list always the last changelog entry and if it starts with some defined keyword it should be possible to detect some previous entry which needs to be replaced or if we should just add the entry. For the moment I'll leave the decision about using the markers or not to you in how far you consider this a safe way of coding. Regarding the missing JSON files which means we can not really create the changes record at all I'd vote for a failure. We really want this feature, right. Giving a reasonable hint what is missing and in case of questions direct to the Blends list seems to be reasonable. Please remember that for a new Blend no such entry is possible and that the check should pass if there is only one release of the Blends metapackages. > Also there is still one thing left(I forgot about that while I was at > debconf). We should ask debian-edu people if they need the packages.txt / > avoidpackages.txt to be stored in orig.tar.gz(should I send an email into > this list?) It might make sense to bring this topic up in a separate mail and also CC [email protected]. > Using debian-med/debian-science as examples I compared previous and current > blends-dev and they have no differences(except the packages which do not > exist in blend_dependencies_alternatives UDD table). Sounds good. This reminds me on my todo list ... :-) Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
