FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux Pacman Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-23-2011, 04:24 PM
Thomas Dziedzic
 
Default Discussion about deprecating/removing the changelog feature from pacman.

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Sven-Hendrik Haase <sh@lutzhaase.com>
> wrote:
> > On 06/23/2011 04:19 PM, Thomas Dziedzic wrote:
> >>
> >> I would like to bring up a point which has been annoying me for a while
> >> and
> >> I would like to get it out there.
> >>
> >> I will argue that the changelog feature is unnecessary in
> >> pacman/PKGBUILDs.
> >>
> >> 1.) It's a feature rarely used by anyone, e.g. there are changelogs
> which
> >> exist which haven't been updated in years which I encounter and remove
> >> right
> >> away.
> >>
> >> 2.)Svn log usually serves the same purpose, and I can not think of any
> >> benefits changelogs provide over svn log.
> >>
> >> 3.)I can not think of one package I have encountered that included a
> >> useful
> >> changelog.
> >>
> >> Some ways to go about removing it are:
> >> declare deprecated -> remove after some time
> >> or just remove changelog support right away
> >> The last option might be viable given its small audience.
> >>
> > +1 for all the reasons you stated.
> >
> > I favor removing changelog right away.
>
> So confused. Should we remove deltas too? And support for bz2/xz
> packages and databases?
>

Deltas have a future use, I would be crazy to suggest that we should remove
them. There is nothing that could replace deltas easily.
I would be even more crazy to suggest removing xz pkg support as we are
currently using this format in all the packages. There is especially nothing
that could replace this.


> Why on earth would we remove a feature that someone might use, even if
> Arch is not making extensive use of it? This is incredibly
> shortsighted.


I just want to bring this up because there is an alternative method (svn
log) which I think works just as well if not better.


> -Dan
>
>
 
Old 06-23-2011, 04:54 PM
Dan McGee
 
Default Discussion about deprecating/removing the changelog feature from pacman.

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Sven-Hendrik Haase <sh@lutzhaase.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On 06/23/2011 04:19 PM, Thomas Dziedzic wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I would like to bring up a point which has been annoying me for a while
>> >> and
>> >> I would like to get it out there.
>> >>
>> >> I will argue that the changelog feature is unnecessary in
>> >> pacman/PKGBUILDs.
>> >>
>> >> 1.) It's a feature rarely used by anyone, e.g. there are changelogs
>> which
>> >> exist which haven't been updated in years which I encounter and remove
>> >> right
>> >> away.
>> >>
>> >> 2.)Svn log usually serves the same purpose, and I can not think of any
>> >> benefits changelogs provide over svn log.
>> >>
>> >> 3.)I can not think of one package I have encountered that included a
>> >> useful
>> >> changelog.
>> >>
>> >> Some ways to go about removing it are:
>> >> declare deprecated -> *remove after some time
>> >> or just remove changelog support right away
>> >> The last option might be viable given its small audience.
>> >>
>> > +1 for all the reasons you stated.
>> >
>> > I favor removing changelog right away.
>>
>> So confused. Should we remove deltas too? And support for bz2/xz
>> packages and databases?
>>
>
> Deltas have a future use, I would be crazy to suggest that we should remove
> them. There is nothing that could replace deltas easily.
> I would be even more crazy to suggest removing xz pkg support as we are
> currently using this format in all the packages. There is especially nothing
> that could replace this.
>
>
>> Why on earth would we remove a feature that someone might use, even if
>> Arch is not making extensive use of it? This is incredibly
>> shortsighted.
>
>
> I just want to bring this up because there is an alternative method (svn
> log) which I think works just as well if not better.

Sure, but this is Arch specific. I obviously had no intention of
removing delta, xz, etc. but my point is the changelog functionality
is exactly the same- it is a tool to use, but not something to be
removed if it is not used.

-Dan
 
Old 06-23-2011, 05:00 PM
Kerrick Staley
 
Default Discussion about deprecating/removing the changelog feature from pacman.

The documentation for changelog-related features takes up like 2 or 3 lines
of `man PKGBUILD`, so even though it may not be as useful as other features,
it carries almost no baggage.

-Kerrick
 
Old 06-23-2011, 05:09 PM
Kerrick Staley
 
Default Discussion about deprecating/removing the changelog feature from pacman.

(and I'm sure the code and documentation elsewhere doesn't amount to a lot
either)

-Kerrick Staley

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Kerrick Staley <mail@kerrickstaley.com>wrote:

> The documentation for changelog-related features takes up like 2 or 3 lines
> of `man PKGBUILD`, so even though it may not be as useful as other features,
> it carries almost no baggage.
>
> -Kerrick
>
 
Old 06-23-2011, 05:25 PM
Thomas Dziedzic
 
Default Discussion about deprecating/removing the changelog feature from pacman.

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Sven-Hendrik Haase <sh@lutzhaase.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On 06/23/2011 04:19 PM, Thomas Dziedzic wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I would like to bring up a point which has been annoying me for a
> while
> >> >> and
> >> >> I would like to get it out there.
> >> >>
> >> >> I will argue that the changelog feature is unnecessary in
> >> >> pacman/PKGBUILDs.
> >> >>
> >> >> 1.) It's a feature rarely used by anyone, e.g. there are changelogs
> >> which
> >> >> exist which haven't been updated in years which I encounter and
> remove
> >> >> right
> >> >> away.
> >> >>
> >> >> 2.)Svn log usually serves the same purpose, and I can not think of
> any
> >> >> benefits changelogs provide over svn log.
> >> >>
> >> >> 3.)I can not think of one package I have encountered that included a
> >> >> useful
> >> >> changelog.
> >> >>
> >> >> Some ways to go about removing it are:
> >> >> declare deprecated -> remove after some time
> >> >> or just remove changelog support right away
> >> >> The last option might be viable given its small audience.
> >> >>
> >> > +1 for all the reasons you stated.
> >> >
> >> > I favor removing changelog right away.
> >>
> >> So confused. Should we remove deltas too? And support for bz2/xz
> >> packages and databases?
> >>
> >
> > Deltas have a future use, I would be crazy to suggest that we should
> remove
> > them. There is nothing that could replace deltas easily.
> > I would be even more crazy to suggest removing xz pkg support as we are
> > currently using this format in all the packages. There is especially
> nothing
> > that could replace this.
> >
> >
> >> Why on earth would we remove a feature that someone might use, even if
> >> Arch is not making extensive use of it? This is incredibly
> >> shortsighted.
> >
> >
> > I just want to bring this up because there is an alternative method (svn
> > log) which I think works just as well if not better.
>
> Sure, but this is Arch specific. I obviously had no intention of
> removing delta, xz, etc. but my point is the changelog functionality
> is exactly the same- it is a tool to use, but not something to be
> removed if it is not used.
>
> -Dan
>
>
Fair argument, but I have already made my argument that it isn't the same
since changelog has an alternative method unlike the other features.
If you hold your statement, then we can at least agree to disagree.

@Kerrick
If this was a simple matter of making the man page smaller, I would have
probably rewritten some sentences and submitted a patch :P
It's a matter of deprecating features that have better methods or are at the
point of being more annoying then useful (ime).
 
Old 06-23-2011, 07:24 PM
Jelle van der Waa
 
Default Discussion about deprecating/removing the changelog feature from pacman.

On 06/23/2011 09:09 PM, Andrea Scarpino wrote:

On Thursday 23 June 2011 11:54:34 Dan McGee wrote:

Sure, but this is Arch specific. I obviously had no intention of
removing delta, xz, etc. but my point is the changelog functionality
is exactly the same- it is a tool to use, but not something to be
removed if it is not used.

I agree with Dan here.

I don't use the changelog feature, but maybe I, and we in general, should
start to use it. pacman -Qc $pkg works for offline usage and is more fast then
open the browser->go to the package page->svn log.

The main problem is not all packages providing a CHANGELOG in their
packages. I'd say the feature is usefull, for archlinux more usefull if
it's used more often



--
Jelle van der Waa
 
Old 06-23-2011, 08:45 PM
"Marc - A. Dahlhaus"
 
Default Discussion about deprecating/removing the changelog feature from pacman.

Am 23.06.2011 17:04, schrieb Dan McGee:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Sven-Hendrik Haase <sh@lutzhaase.com> wrote:
>> On 06/23/2011 04:19 PM, Thomas Dziedzic wrote:
>>>
>>> I would like to bring up a point which has been annoying me for a while
>>> and
>>> I would like to get it out there.
>>>
>>> I will argue that the changelog feature is unnecessary in
>>> pacman/PKGBUILDs.
>>>
>>> 1.) It's a feature rarely used by anyone, e.g. there are changelogs which
>>> exist which haven't been updated in years which I encounter and remove
>>> right
>>> away.
>>>
>>> 2.)Svn log usually serves the same purpose, and I can not think of any
>>> benefits changelogs provide over svn log.
>>>
>>> 3.)I can not think of one package I have encountered that included a
>>> useful
>>> changelog.
>>>
>>> Some ways to go about removing it are:
>>> declare deprecated -> remove after some time
>>> or just remove changelog support right away
>>> The last option might be viable given its small audience.
>>>
>> +1 for all the reasons you stated.
>>
>> I favor removing changelog right away.
>
> So confused. Should we remove deltas too? And support for bz2/xz
> packages and databases?
>
> Why on earth would we remove a feature that someone might use, even if
> Arch is not making extensive use of it? This is incredibly
> shortsighted.

I second Dan's opinion here. => NAK

We use changelogs quite extensively, and all should keep in mind that

pacman -Qc PACKAGENAME

will help any user that doesn't need to know where your PKGBUILD tree is
managed / tracked / whatever...

I would suggest that makepkg should be extended to have a way to add the
output of a command (e.g. "svn log") as changelog to a package...

That would make the life easier for any maintainer and would solve the
problem even for the lazy arch package maintainers... :-P

Thanks,

Marc
 
Old 06-23-2011, 09:46 PM
Allan McRae
 
Default Discussion about deprecating/removing the changelog feature from pacman.

On 24/06/11 01:04, Dan McGee wrote:

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Sven-Hendrik Haase<sh@lutzhaase.com> wrote:

On 06/23/2011 04:19 PM, Thomas Dziedzic wrote:


I would like to bring up a point which has been annoying me for a while
and
I would like to get it out there.

I will argue that the changelog feature is unnecessary in
pacman/PKGBUILDs.

1.) It's a feature rarely used by anyone, e.g. there are changelogs which
exist which haven't been updated in years which I encounter and remove
right
away.

2.)Svn log usually serves the same purpose, and I can not think of any
benefits changelogs provide over svn log.

3.)I can not think of one package I have encountered that included a
useful
changelog.

Some ways to go about removing it are:
declare deprecated -> remove after some time
or just remove changelog support right away
The last option might be viable given its small audience.


+1 for all the reasons you stated.

I favor removing changelog right away.


So confused. Should we remove deltas too? And support for bz2/xz
packages and databases?

Why on earth would we remove a feature that someone might use, even if
Arch is not making extensive use of it? This is incredibly
shortsighted.



Agreed. It is not being removed.

As an Arch packager, I have to admit I find changlogs to be a pain to
maintain. But that is because I am lazy. Many other distros enforce
packagers to write a changelog and it gets done. So this is an Arch
issue and not a pacman one.


Feature is staying.
Allan
 
Old 06-24-2011, 10:29 AM
"Marc - A. Dahlhaus"
 
Default Discussion about deprecating/removing the changelog feature from pacman.

Am Donnerstag, den 23.06.2011, 15:48 -0500 schrieb Dan McGee:
--8<--
> > We use changelogs quite extensively, and all should keep in mind that
> >
> > pacman -Qc PACKAGENAME
> >
> > will help any user that doesn't need to know where your PKGBUILD tree is
> > managed / tracked / whatever...
> >
> > I would suggest that makepkg should be extended to have a way to add the
> > output of a command (e.g. "svn log") as changelog to a package...
> >
> > That would make the life easier for any maintainer and would solve the
> > problem even for the lazy arch package maintainers... :-P
>
> Agree with you here- this seems like it would be a useful addition.
> Just calling out to a CHANGELOG_SCRIPT or something would be pretty
> awesome. Arch Linux would use svn log --limit <date> of some sort,
> other distros using git to track their repos could use git logs, etc.
>
> If you don't think you're interested in implementing this, I'd at
> least suggest opening a feature request for it.

Have some things to take care of for upstart first and will take a look
at it when i'm done with it. Also have som cleanup work for pacman in my
pipe but havn't had time to write down a mail for the list and for
implementing it. (Mostly about a removal of '.d' suffix on /etc/pacman.d
as its misnamed with respect to all other users of a '.d' suffix in etc
and a rework of rate mirrors that would make a packages like
"mirrors-{africa,asia,europe,{north,south}america}" possible without
much of a hassle for pacman...)

Marc
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:32 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org