radical suggestion for fc4 release

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at freenet.de
Tue Feb 1 11:13:27 UTC 2005

On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 11:40 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 18:01:57 -0500, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 05:37:29PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > > Oh, no.  *Bad* idea.  It's an attack on the symptom, not the problem.
> > 
> > No, it's a *good* idea IMO. Problem is it does't go all the way.
> > WTH are changelogs doing in .spec files?!?  This is the job of the version 
> > control system, not of packaging specifications.
> Uhm, they document package changes.
Do you document your changes inside of the source code?
In my understanding, *specs are one part of rpm's sources.

> > It probably comes from the (misguided) school of thought that includes 
> > $Log$ in source files...
> No.
I disagree. Adding %changelogs to specs is not any different from $Log$.

Having an entry in an rpm-header containing the last change might be
useful for users being interested in the reason for a new rpm release,
but I fail to understand why having a full %changelog-history inside of
rpms or metadata files is useful.


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list