ambiguity in the guidelines

seth vidal skvidal at
Thu Jul 6 04:51:19 UTC 2006

On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 19:21 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> On 7/5/06, seth vidal <skvidal at> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 18:58 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > > the meantime.
> >
> > I never said it was redundant info. I said it was in the wrong place, in
> > an overloaded field.
> So are you suggesting that the changelog section be broken up into
> different fields?  If it is just a field name you are concerned about
> you could break the changelog line into seperate fields and call each
> field by a different name.
> Do you agree that historical release information is useful to have
> available from an rpm query command?

sure - but it's in the wrong place - put it in the text field of the
changelog if you MUST have it.


* Wed Jun  1 2005 Seth Vidal <skvidal at>
- 3.4-1%{?dist}.0
- made life miserable for users

* Tue May  31 2005 Seth Vidal <skvidal at>
- 3.4-1%{?dist}.0
- intentionally made others suffer.

etc, etc, etc.

that way we've left the changelogname field alone and you still have
your precious version data in each entry.

Ideally I'd prefer if it were:
* Tue May 31 2005 Seth Vidal <skvidal at>
** Version: 3.4-1%{?dist}.0
- comment here
- comment there

or some such thing.


More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list