Hi Dago On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 06:36:15PM +0200, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Hi Rafi, > > Am 22.04.2014 um 15:19 schrieb Rafael Ostertag <[email protected]>: > >>>> > >>>> I also had this idea that instead of using VERSION in the Makefile, we > >>>> could take the latest version from changelog: > >>>> > >>>> VERSION = $(call extract_version_from_changelog) > >>> > >>> +1 > >>> > >>> [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-dpkgchangelog > >> > >> I don't think that is a good idea for two reasons: > >> > >> 1. The application version (e.g. 1.2) is tightly coupled to DISTFILE and > >> updated only on version bumps. > >> 2. The REV is calculated from the date which is good IMHO > >> > >> The Changelog should IMHO contain high-level descriptions of changes, like > >> "Switch from OpenSSL to GnuTLS" accommodated by a date when the change was > >> done. > > > > I don't see a contradiction. Let's see how a changelog might look like. Upon > > initial CSW package creation it might look like this: > > > > foo (0.2,REV=2014.01.01) > > > > * Initial packaging for OpenCSW. > > > > -- Rafael Ostertag ? > > I was more thinking of > > foo (2004-06-14T23:34:30) > > * Initial packaging > > -- Rafael Ostertag ... > > > From my POV, those were all high level descriptions. And they give the user > > a > > clue what has changed. Low level stuff will be in svn or the recipe itself. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, or maybe I don't get the point of the > > changelog.CSW. > > My point was that not version/REV should be in the timemark, but just a real, > precise > time, like ISO8601
I see. > > >> This may not be related to package rebuilds. > > Can you elaborate on this? What type of change in the build recipe does not > > require a respin? There is none on top of my head ;) > > Because it is progress. The Changelog is for me some documentation of > continuous > work which documents larger chunks than a commit but less then a release of > the > package. Aha! Apparently we use the changelog.CSW differently. I use it more the way as outlined throughout [1]. I guess we should reach a consensus about this OR I make cswch support both styles. Maintainers could then decide which style they want to use and, if they use the debian style, they might even use Maciej's VERSION = $(call extract_version_from_changelog) > > >> What may be a good idea is to retrieve the REV timestamp from the change > >> log, > >> but again rebuilding may result in binary-different packages with the same > >> revstamp. > > Yes, but is that really of any concern to the changelog? This happens with > > or > > without changelog. > > Having the same format in the changelog is IMHO confusing as it suggests that > a package with the version and REV actually exists/existed. Indeed, but the way I use it, this is the case... cheers rafi [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/
