Re: A few questions about rpmdev-bumpspec tool
Dne 13. 08. 20 v 12:41 Qiyu Yan napsal(a): > Hello all, > > I have some problem with rpmdev-bumpspec recently. > > In the latest version of rpmdevtools, rpmdev-bumpspec has changed to > use time+date in the changelog it generates[1], while the packaging > guidelines have not been updated accordingly[2], should the guideline > be updated to the rpmdev-bumpspec change? I don't like this change and asked revert: https://pagure.io/rpmdevtools/issue/63 Vít > > I am packaging fcitx5 using forge macros, and upstream have never > tagged a version, in this case, I am packaging like this [3] (The > snapshot dates and git short commit hashesin changelog is manually > added). With this spec file, I noticed that when I try to use > rpmdev-bumpspec to generate a changelog, it will give things like this > [4]. > > You can see that, in case of using forge, rpmdev-bumpspec can't > include either snapshot dates nor git short commit hashes, will this > be fine (and we can ignore the warning from rpmlint when ran on the > built packages, and start the review process) or I should always > manually include snapshot dates and git commit hashes in the > changelog. Or I should wait for this change [5] to be done and ignore > all changelog things? (and submit for review then?) > > Thanks. > > [1]: https://pagure.io/rpmdevtools/c/d205ad9cfc4b7123acd573e028f8c4521ec79300 > [2]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs > [3]: > https://github.com/karuboniru/fcitx5-fedora/blob/master/fcitx5/fcitx5.spec > [4]: > https://github.com/karuboniru/fcitx5-fedora/blob/972fd2e2e84e6ca136a9c5f4f8ad20653cca3594/fcitx5/fcitx5.spec > [5]: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Patches_in_Forge_macros_-_Auto_macros_-_Detached_rpm_changelogs > -- > And the snapshot dates generated on my machine and copr can be > different, I think this is related to time zone (I am in UTC+8), I > don't think it is a bug, but I hope this will be improved. ___ 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
Re: A few questions about rpmdev-bumpspec tool
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 12:42 PM Qiyu Yan wrote: > > Hello all, > > I have some problem with rpmdev-bumpspec recently. > > In the latest version of rpmdevtools, rpmdev-bumpspec has changed to > use time+date in the changelog it generates[1], while the packaging > guidelines have not been updated accordingly[2], should the guideline > be updated to the rpmdev-bumpspec change? > > I am packaging fcitx5 using forge macros, and upstream have never > tagged a version, in this case, I am packaging like this [3] (The > snapshot dates and git short commit hashesin changelog is manually > added). With this spec file, I noticed that when I try to use > rpmdev-bumpspec to generate a changelog, it will give things like this > [4]. > > You can see that, in case of using forge, rpmdev-bumpspec can't > include either snapshot dates nor git short commit hashes, will this > be fine (and we can ignore the warning from rpmlint when ran on the > built packages, and start the review process) or I should always > manually include snapshot dates and git commit hashes in the > changelog. Or I should wait for this change [5] to be done and ignore > all changelog things? (and submit for review then?) > > Thanks. You're not wrong, rpmdev-bumpspec is not completely compatible with the forge macros, especially in the snapshot packaging case (because the forge macros mess with the value of %dist, as mentioned in the other response). While rpmdev-bump will produce changelog entries with "wrong" (or incomplete) EVR information, SRPM and RPM builds will have the correct Release set, so it's not a "big deal". For my packages that suffer from this (e.g. some Go packages that internally use the forge macros), I tend to manually "fix" the version-release in the changelog entries after running rpmdev-bumpspec. Fabio ___ 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
Re: A few questions about rpmdev-bumpspec tool
On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 18:41:23 +0800, Qiyu Yan wrote: > In the latest version of rpmdevtools, rpmdev-bumpspec has changed to > use time+date in the changelog it generates[1], while the packaging > guidelines have not been updated accordingly[2], should the guideline > be updated to the rpmdev-bumpspec change? The git commit message for that change is vague, since it only refers to an RPM version but doesn't sum up what the goal of this change is. > I am packaging fcitx5 using forge macros, and upstream have never > tagged a version, in this case, I am packaging like this [3] (The > snapshot dates and git short commit hashesin changelog is manually > added). With this spec file, I noticed that when I try to use > rpmdev-bumpspec to generate a changelog, it will give things like this > [4]. The forge macros you use mess with %dist, which is highly questionable. The rpmdev-bumpspec script itself doesn't evaluate any RPM macros. It only recognizes a variety of version/release schemes used by Fedora. For the %changelog comment, it relies on an "rpm" command-line call in order to determine the full E:VR for the %changelog entry. Since %dist is not to be included in %changelog comments, %dist gets undefined, but then the %forge macro stuff is lost. As a side-note: The E:V-R details right of the email address in changelog comments are not everyone's cup of tea. They are not mission critical but optional. If truncated, they don't break the rpmbuild. In your case, V-R is complete and accurate. The left most-significant part of %release is included in the V-R and is sufficient, and while the git commit hash is missing, it is just noise in changelog comments. ___ 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
A few questions about rpmdev-bumpspec tool
Hello all, I have some problem with rpmdev-bumpspec recently. In the latest version of rpmdevtools, rpmdev-bumpspec has changed to use time+date in the changelog it generates[1], while the packaging guidelines have not been updated accordingly[2], should the guideline be updated to the rpmdev-bumpspec change? I am packaging fcitx5 using forge macros, and upstream have never tagged a version, in this case, I am packaging like this [3] (The snapshot dates and git short commit hashesin changelog is manually added). With this spec file, I noticed that when I try to use rpmdev-bumpspec to generate a changelog, it will give things like this [4]. You can see that, in case of using forge, rpmdev-bumpspec can't include either snapshot dates nor git short commit hashes, will this be fine (and we can ignore the warning from rpmlint when ran on the built packages, and start the review process) or I should always manually include snapshot dates and git commit hashes in the changelog. Or I should wait for this change [5] to be done and ignore all changelog things? (and submit for review then?) Thanks. [1]: https://pagure.io/rpmdevtools/c/d205ad9cfc4b7123acd573e028f8c4521ec79300 [2]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs [3]: https://github.com/karuboniru/fcitx5-fedora/blob/master/fcitx5/fcitx5.spec [4]: https://github.com/karuboniru/fcitx5-fedora/blob/972fd2e2e84e6ca136a9c5f4f8ad20653cca3594/fcitx5/fcitx5.spec [5]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Patches_in_Forge_macros_-_Auto_macros_-_Detached_rpm_changelogs -- And the snapshot dates generated on my machine and copr can be different, I think this is related to time zone (I am in UTC+8), I don't think it is a bug, but I hope this will be improved. -- Best regards, Qiyu Yan ___ 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
