ambiguity in the guidelines
chris.stone at gmail.com
Thu Jul 6 01:58:37 UTC 2006
On 7/5/06, seth vidal <skvidal at linux.duke.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 16:26 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> > The way I see it is that Fedora packages and Fedora packagers should
> > strive to have the best spec files possible.
> > If providing a version number in the changelog makes it easier for
> > users of the package in any way then it should be added to spec files.
> > I don't see this as an overloading of a tag issue, I see this as a
> > packager being lazy issue. Just my wooden nickle.
> It's an overloaded tag b/c the tag did not originally have that intent.
> it's an added bullshit item that clutters up the data.
It's not bullshit. I have myself used rpm -q --changelog to find out
which changes were made for a particular version.
It should not be required, because you should be able to add entries
to the change log without a release, such as changes only made in cvs.
But when you do an actual release you should match the date with the
release number to make it easier for users to associate dates with
Yes you can argue that rpm should do this automatically somehow, but
where is this rpm patch that you have been working on? I think it is
not unreasonable to ask packagers to place version numbers on
changelog entries that are associated with a release. This provides a
common courtesy to those using the rpm.
We understand your point that it is redundant information, but I think
the better solution is to provide a source patch to fix rpm, or file a
bug against rpm and place the extra information in the changelog in
More information about the Fedora-maintainers