ambiguity in the guidelines

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at
Thu Jul 6 13:08:39 UTC 2006

On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 08:51 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 July 2006 16:13, seth vidal wrote:
> >  I'd love to hear more comments on this
> >
> >
> >
> > I've read the guidelines and I don't see where it mandates the format of
> > the changelog lines.
> After reading all the comments, my opinion is
> A) Changelog format should not be a MUST, we could allow for some flexibility 
> in the packager.
> B) There could be a generic 'The changelog SHOULD have the version-release 
> noted in it somewhere' rule, where that version-release winds up is up to the 
> packager, and its a should rather than a Must.  Reviews shouldn't be blocked 
> because of this, its just a suggested practice.
I fail to see how this would be helpful.

All this (and the warning in rpmlint) does, is to add confusion. I
prefer strict and clear guidelines. 

I.e. either
1) CHANGELOGNAME is a freeform string. You can stick anything into it
you might find useful.

2) Mandate a text format for CHANGELOGNAME. No exceptions allowed.


More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list