Re: RPM %changelog?

On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 13:57 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 08:40:04 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > That's pretty much the exact *opposite* of what I put in the changelog, > > FWIW. > > It is no news that in recent years some people have pushed their own > agenda about

Re: RPM %changelog?

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 08:40:04 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > That's pretty much the exact *opposite* of what I put in the changelog, > FWIW. It is no news that in recent years some people have pushed their own agenda about what to put into which changelog. I can't do anything about that. > For

Re: RPM %changelog?

> On 10/25/2016 09:35 PM, David Shea wrote: > > Well then, who exactly should set the RPM standard if not RPM itself? > > FWIW, the change in question occurred in the transition from RPM V3 > packages to V4 packages which involved much more than just file name > storage and RPM still

Re: RPM %changelog?

On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 09:06 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > That wouldn't really bother me, so I'm only curious, but why do you > find having a big changelog at the end of the file so annoying? It's > at > the end and you pretty much never have to look at it. Is it just > because it tends to match

Re: RPM %changelog?

On 10/25/2016 09:35 PM, David Shea wrote: Please, no, don't do that. RPM is a standard lol. * The representation of file names in package headers changed in rpm-4.0. * Originally, file names were stored as an array of absolute paths. * In rpm-4.0, file names are stored as separate arrays

Re: RPM %changelog?

On 25 October 2016 at 23:47, Jonny Heggheim wrote: > On 25 October 2016 at 17:06, Adam Williamson > wrote: >> That wouldn't really bother me, so I'm only curious, but why do you >> find having a big changelog at the end of the file so annoying? It's

Re: RPM %changelog?

On 25 October 2016 at 17:06, Adam Williamson wrote: > That wouldn't really bother me, so I'm only curious, but why do you > find having a big changelog at the end of the file so annoying? It's at > the end and you pretty much never have to look at it. Is it just >

Re: RPM %changelog?

have three changelogs, and > possibly *four*: > > 1. Whatever upstream has > 2. The specfile/rpm changelog > 3. The dist-git commit > 4. Bodhi notes — for updates that go through bodhi. > > For a user, #4 and #1 are probably the most useful, while #2 is the > most easily-accessed (and

Re: RPM %changelog?

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 09:51:09PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Well, the user-centric stuff belongs in the Bodhi update notes first of all. This is an excellent point. Argh — we have three changelogs, and possibly *four*: 1. Whatever upstream has 2. The specfile/rpm changelog 3. The dist-

Re: RPM %changelog?

Adam Williamson wrote: > That's pretty much the exact *opposite* of what I put in the changelog, > FWIW. For me, that stuff goes in the git commit message (and even then > I don't really break it down in that much detail, because the tools > make it easy to see *what* changed, the thing the commit

Re: RPM %changelog?

On 10/25/2016 11:35 AM, David Shea wrote: Please, no, don't do that. RPM is a standard lol. * The representation of file names in package headers changed in rpm-4.0. * Originally, file names were stored as an array of absolute paths. * In rpm-4.0, file names are stored as separate arrays

Re: RPM %changelog?

On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 18:35 +, David Shea wrote: > > Please, no, don't do that. RPM is a standard > > lol. > > * The representation of file names in package headers changed in rpm-4.0. > * Originally, file names were stored as an array of absolute paths. > * In rpm-4.0, file names are

Re: RPM %changelog?

> Please, no, don't do that. RPM is a standard lol. * The representation of file names in package headers changed in rpm-4.0. * Originally, file names were stored as an array of absolute paths. * In rpm-4.0, file names are stored as separate arrays of dirname's and * basename's, * with a

Re: RPM %changelog?

On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 10:43 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 11:08 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > This seems perfect! (Wow, look what happens when we have people from > > other distros participating -- thanks!) > > It doesn't do anything to fix the problem that the

Re: RPM %changelog?

On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 11:08 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > This seems perfect! (Wow, look what happens when we have people from > other distros participating -- thanks!) It doesn't do anything to fix the problem that the changelog takes up way too much space in the spec file. We should have

Re: RPM %changelog?

Dne 25.10.2016 v 16:23 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): > On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 08:56:10 -0400 > Matthew Miller wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 05:00:21PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: Please, no, don't do that. RPM is a standard, the changelog is part of that. It would

Re: RPM %changelog?

On Sun, 2016-10-23 at 19:46 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 16:21:25 +, Christopher wrote: > > > > Our rules is "leave it to the packager's personal preference" and to > > > "keep what's important". > > > > I'm curious, what *IS* important? > > 1.) Don't copy upstream

Re: RPM %changelog?

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 04:59:17PM +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote: > FWIW, SUSE has a patch in rpm that trims only the changelog of binary rpms > and leaves the full changelog in the source rpms. This seems perfect! (Wow, look what happens when we have people from other distros participating --

Re: RPM %changelog?

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 03:33:25PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 05:00:21PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> > > Please, no, don't do that. RPM is a standard, the changelog is > >> > > part of that. It would be pretty crappy to just declare we're > >> > > going to stop

Re: RPM %changelog?

>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 05:00:21PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: >> > > Please, no, don't do that. RPM is a standard, the changelog is >> > > part of that. It would be pretty crappy to just declare we're >> > > going to stop using RPM changelogs and bake some random new idea >> > > into our distro's

Re: RPM %changelog?

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 08:56:10 -0400 Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 05:00:21PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > Please, no, don't do that. RPM is a standard, the changelog is > > > part of that. It would be pretty crappy to just declare we're > > > going to

Re: RPM %changelog?

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:35:46AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > SUSE deleted all their RPM changelogs a very long time ago, we should > do the same. AFAIK the SUSE .changes files predate the switch to rpm. So we somewhat never used rpm style changelogs. ;) Cheers, Michael. -- Michael

Re: RPM %changelog?

On 25/10/16 14:56, Matthew Miller wrote: On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 05:00:21PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: Please, no, don't do that. RPM is a standard, the changelog is part of that. It would be pretty crappy to just declare we're going to stop using RPM changelogs and bake some random new idea

Re: RPM %changelog?

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 05:00:21PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > Please, no, don't do that. RPM is a standard, the changelog is part of > > that. It would be pretty crappy to just declare we're going to stop > > using RPM changelogs and bake some random new idea into our distro's > > packaging

Re: RPM %changelog?

Dne 25.10.2016 v 13:03 Neal Gompa napsal(a): > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 6:35 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 09:14:14AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: >>> So why don't we optionally split changelog out of the .spec file? >>> Something like this might be

Re: RPM %changelog?

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 6:35 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 09:14:14AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> So why don't we optionally split changelog out of the .spec file? >> Something like this might be first step: >> >> >> $ sed -n '/^*/,$ p' ruby.spec >

Re: RPM %changelog?

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 09:14:14AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > So why don't we optionally split changelog out of the .spec file? > Something like this might be first step: > > > $ sed -n '/^*/,$ p' ruby.spec > ruby.changes The problem with this is the first time there is a mass rebuild, or a

Re: RPM %changelog?

uot;(SILENT)" prevents inclusion in rpm changelog. At the > very least you'd want to skip old messages with ill-suited formatting etc. That sounds like a very good plan to me! Having something like this would make my life quite a bit easier. -- Kalev ___

Re: RPM %changelog?

!) My dist-git commit messages often contain stuff that is too long for the RPM %changelog. They also usually contain a complete paste of the RPM %changelog entry including the date + author + EVR line in the body (plus a summary as the special first line, plus occasionally some additional freeform

Re: RPM %changelog?

So why don't we optionally split changelog out of the .spec file? Something like this might be first step: $ sed -n '/^*/,$ p' ruby.spec > ruby.changes $ git diff diff --git a/ruby.spec b/ruby.spec index 2817201..c82740d 100644 --- a/ruby.spec +++ b/ruby.spec @@ -92,6 +92,7 @@ Source10:

Re: RPM %changelog?

lugin!) My dist-git commit messages often contain stuff that is too long for the RPM %changelog. They also usually contain a complete paste of the RPM %changelog entry including the date + author + EVR line in the body (plus a summary as the special first line, plus occasionally some additional fr

Re: RPM %changelog?

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2016-10-24 at 16:12 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 07:39:19PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> > Hmmm. I think I don't consider it duplicated information. A commit >> >

Re: RPM %changelog?

On Mon, 2016-10-24 at 16:12 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 07:39:19PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > Hmmm. I think I don't consider it duplicated information. A commit > > messages in the VCS afaics is something that is written for other > > developers that want to

Re: RPM %changelog?

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 07:39:19PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Hmmm. I think I don't consider it duplicated information. A commit > messages in the VCS afaics is something that is written for other > developers that want to understand/track changes (now or in the future). This was my first

Re: RPM %changelog?

On 23.10.2016 19:31, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 10:37:17AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: >> In Mageia, we use the VCS log as input to dynamically generate the RPM >> changelog and append it to the spec as part of the SRPM build process >> for the packag

Re: RPM %changelog?

Engineer Python Maintenance Team, Red Hat - Original Message - From: "Michael Catanzaro" <mcatanz...@gnome.org> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" <devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2016 4:09:35 PM Subject: RPM %changel

Re: RPM %changelog?

On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 16:21:25 +, Christopher wrote: > > Our rules is "leave it to the packager's personal preference" and to > > "keep what's important". > > I'm curious, what *IS* important? 1.) Don't copy upstream changelogs into the spec %changelog. 2.) Mention everything that may affect

Re: RPM %changelog?

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 03:39:06PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Michael Catanzaro > wrote: > > On Sun, 2016-10-23 at 03:49 +, Christopher wrote: > >> 2. Should I preserve the entire changelog in the SPEC? Or should I > >> roll it > >>

Re: RPM %changelog?

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 10:37:17AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > In Mageia, we use the VCS log as input to dynamically generate the RPM > changelog and append it to the spec as part of the SRPM build process > for the package build. This would be far better than the current situation IMHO.

Re: RPM %changelog?

On Sun, 2016-10-23 at 16:31 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > SUSE has a %changelog RPM macro that fixes this by > > moving the changelog into a .changes file stored in the same > directory. > >  Every SUSE package uses it. Probably we should too? > > No. That said, I personally consider SUSE's

Re: RPM %changelog?

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 10:35 AM Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 10/23/2016 04:09 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > On Sun, 2016-10-23 at 03:49 +, Christopher wrote: > >> 2. Should I preserve the entire changelog in the SPEC? Or should I > >> roll it > >> over when I update to

Re: RPM %changelog?

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Michael Catanzaro > wrote: >> On Sun, 2016-10-23 at 03:49 +, Christopher wrote: >>> 2. Should I preserve the entire changelog in the SPEC? Or should I >>>

Re: RPM %changelog?

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Sun, 2016-10-23 at 03:49 +, Christopher wrote: >> 2. Should I preserve the entire changelog in the SPEC? Or should I >> roll it >> over when I update to the latest upstream? It seems the changelog >> could >>

Re: RPM %changelog?

ould too? In Mageia, we use the VCS log as input to dynamically generate the RPM changelog and append it to the spec as part of the SRPM build process for the package build. The only issue is that there's a small bit of information loss in terms of the date stamp, but if a few commits from RPM git master[

Re: RPM %changelog?

On 10/23/2016 04:09 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: On Sun, 2016-10-23 at 03:49 +, Christopher wrote: 2. Should I preserve the entire changelog in the SPEC? Or should I roll it over when I update to the latest upstream? It seems the changelog could easily become the bulk of a package if

RPM %changelog?

On Sun, 2016-10-23 at 03:49 +, Christopher wrote: > 2. Should I preserve the entire changelog in the SPEC? Or should I > roll it > over when I update to the latest upstream? It seems the changelog > could > easily become the bulk of a package if everything is preserved, and > I'd > think git

Re: rpm changelog (was Re: Notice of intent: patching glibc)

Genes MailLists wrote: Would a git-shortlog suffice for %changelog ? It would need to be git-short-shortlog (hypothetically) as filling a rpm changelog with hundreds of lines of commits is not very helpful. I've always considered the rpm changelog to be a changelog of the spec itself

Re: rpm changelog (was Re: Notice of intent: patching glibc)

On 09/07/2011 11:12 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: Genes MailLists wrote: Would a git-shortlog suffice for %changelog ? It would need to be git-short-shortlog (hypothetically) as filling a rpm changelog with hundreds of lines of commits is not very helpful. I've always considered the rpm

Re: rpm changelog (was Re: Notice of intent: patching glibc)

Rich Megginson on 09/07/2011 12:44 PM wrote: git log --oneline TAG-OF-PREVIOUS-RELEASE.. | cat the | cat (or | more) is needed because git log will truncate lines This is not what I meant. Upstream may have had 20-30 commits inbetween tags. I wouldn't want to see 20-30 lines of RPM changelog

Re: rpm changelog (was Re: Notice of intent: patching glibc)

tags. I wouldn't want to see 20-30 lines of RPM changelog. Seems pretty useful for users to see what changed - curious why not? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: rpm changelog (was Re: Notice of intent: patching glibc)

Genes MailLists on 09/07/2011 12:57 PM wrote: Seems pretty useful for users to see what changed - curious why not? Users are not programmers. Commits may range from merge from branch such-n-such to ran indent to clean up formatting which has extremely little value to users. -- devel mailing

Re: rpm changelog (was Re: Notice of intent: patching glibc)

extremely little value to users. +1 from me. Well, it would be convenient to automate the rpm changelog creation in some way. But we need *our* changelog for *our* changes to the package. Most packages ship a NEWS file anyway, which includes the changes to the software itself. Best Regards