On Friday, January 10, 2020 5:36:46 PM CET Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > Do we want to drop release and changelog from our spec file?
No. People continuously tend to forget that '%changelog' is for end-users. Especially if some distributions already claim they can live fine without %changelog... Unless product managers say that 'rpm -q --changelog' is not a thing nowadays, we should at least _allow_ being "nice" to end users. So whatever approach we use by default -- the maintainers still have to have a chance to maintain %changelog manually. That said, to not loose the freedom, yes - we can implement some automation - but only if that can be turned off. By those who care about %changelog. Regarding automation, I'm sceptic. See how GNU maintains ChangeLog files ... and how difficult is to edit the ChangeLog entries retrospectively when some automation breaks it. If people claim maintaining %changelog is too expensive so they want it generated -- having it generated is even more expensive. I mean if maintainer cares to have '-q --changelog' nice. > With the changelog it becomes a little bit more tricky. > We currently have 3 changelogs in Fedora with 3 different target audience > (this > is how I understand them): > - One for the files in the git repository, meant to be "consumed" by our > fellow packagers, not meant to leave the Fedora infrastructure > - One in the spec file describing the changes applied to it. This one is > meant > to be accessible to sysadmins who want to know/check what changed in a > package > - One in bodhi, meant for end-user consumption and which should give some > explanation as to why the package was updated or where information about > the > update can be found In ideal world, shouldn't the bodhi change description be equivalent to %changelog, or at least a super-set of %changelog? If these were equivalent, maintainers woudl have to think more about %changelog. > So we need to, somehow, merge two changelogs into one while realizing that > some > information in one may not be desirable in the other (for example the world > famous commit message: "oops I've forgot to upload the sources" does not need > to > appear in the RPM's changelog). > Would it be easier to merge the git changelog with the spec changelog or the > spec changelog with the bodhi notes? spec changelog with bodhi notes > For the former one easy way to achieve this is to consider all the commits > since > the last successful build and have a magic keyword to either include or > exclude > a commit message in the changelog. > For the latter, we discussed the idea of using annotated git tags this fall. > > Both have their pros and cons, do people have some experience with either and > could share their feedback? See the GNU (e.g. gnulib) `make ChangeLog`. The annotated tags are IMO used in rpkg-util, and for regular git user they are "magic". People will start asking where the changelog is defined, how to change it, etc. Pavel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
