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 > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-29-2010, 04:00 PM
Pierre-Yves
 
Default Reordering in package changelogs (was rawhide report: 20100129 changes)

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:59 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> Here's where it gets weird:
> 0.6.10-1 then 0.6.10-2 then 0.6.9-4 then 0.6.9-2 seems an arbitrary
> ordering:
It is only weird/inverted when the date are the same.

Pierre
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-01-2010, 05:47 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Reordering in package changelogs (was rawhide report: 20100129 changes)

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> This is one reason I prefer to use the following changelog style
>
> * Thu Jan 28 2010 Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@fedoraproject.org>
> - 2.2-10
> - Fix tuple_copy() further (it was completely broken as the mowgli
> dict wasn't copied at all).
> - 2.2-9
> - Let set_tuple_cb() work on a copied tuple
> (the metadata updates flood is too racy IMO).
> - Fix tuple_copy().

This style is not compliant with the Fedora packaging guidelines.

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-01-2010, 06:00 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Reordering in package changelogs (was rawhide report: 20100129 changes)

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:47:20 +0100, Kevin wrote:

> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > This is one reason I prefer to use the following changelog style
> >
> > * Thu Jan 28 2010 Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@fedoraproject.org>
> > - 2.2-10
> > - Fix tuple_copy() further (it was completely broken as the mowgli
> > dict wasn't copied at all).
> > - 2.2-9
> > - Let set_tuple_cb() work on a copied tuple
> > (the metadata updates flood is too racy IMO).
> > - Fix tuple_copy().
>
> This style is not compliant with the Fedora packaging guidelines.
>
> Kevin Kofler
>

And, of course, both of you had to put my name and e-mail address
into that example?

What's quoted above is not what I like. It breaks "make clog",
for example.

--
Michael Schwendt
Fedora release 12 (Constantine) - Linux 2.6.31.12-174.2.3.fc12.i686.PAE
http://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/staticbugstat.html
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-01-2010, 06:22 PM
Nicolas Mailhot
 
Default Reordering in package changelogs (was rawhide report: 20100129 changes)

Le lundi 01 février 2010 à 19:47 +0100, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > This is one reason I prefer to use the following changelog style
> >
> > * Thu Jan 28 2010 Michael Schwendt <>
> > - 2.2-10
> > - Fix tuple_copy() further (it was completely broken as the mowgli
> > dict wasn't copied at all).
> > - 2.2-9
> > - Let set_tuple_cb() work on a copied tuple
> > (the metadata updates flood is too racy IMO).
> > - Fix tuple_copy().
>
> This style is not compliant with the Fedora packaging guidelines.

Sure it is, it's changelog style #3 of
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs

The original rpm changelog style where version is not part of the
changelog header line



--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-01-2010, 08:05 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Reordering in package changelogs (was rawhide report: 20100129 changes)

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Sure it is, it's changelog style #3 of
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs

No, it's not style #3. It's 2 or more style #3 entries collapsed into 1,
which is not one of the allowed formats.

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-02-2010, 09:35 AM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Reordering in package changelogs (was rawhide report: 20100129 changes)

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> That is your interpretation. I see nothing on this page to support this
> claim. And actually it is contrary to format #3 logic, since its main
> difference with other changelog formats is that the version is not part of
> the entry header, so there's no reason to limit one entry to one version

It's blatantly obvious that all these formats have one thing in common:
there's one entry per new EVR. Our automated tools (e.g. make clog as
already pointed out by Michael Schwendt) also expect that. But I guess I'll
need to get the FPC to officially clarify this.

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-02-2010, 07:14 PM
Björn Persson
 
Default Reordering in package changelogs (was rawhide report: 20100129 changes)

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> This changelog style conforms to the existing spec, it has been in use in
> Fedora for several years, it may surprise you, but changing the spec
> retroactively is not the way to prove your point.

There's a spec? Where? I want to read it.

Björn Persson
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-02-2010, 08:11 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Reordering in package changelogs (was rawhide report: 20100129 changes)

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> This changelog style conforms to the existing spec, it has been in use in
> Fedora for several years, it may surprise you, but changing the spec
> retroactively is not the way to prove your point.

Uh, the Fedora packaging guidelines DO have the power to change the
requirements, they're not cast in stone. Even existing changelogs can be
fixed.

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-04-2010, 11:47 PM
Björn Persson
 
Default Reordering in package changelogs (was rawhide report: 20100129 changes)

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le Mar 2 février 2010 21:14, Björn Persson a écrit :
> > Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> >> This changelog style conforms to the existing spec, it has been in use
> >> in Fedora for several years, it may surprise you, but changing the spec
> >> retroactively is not the way to prove your point.
> >
> > There's a spec? Where? I want to read it.
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs

That's four examples of changelog entries. Examples are good but they're no
replacement for a specification. It's not at all clear which details are
mandatory syntax elements and which are merely the preferences of the person
who wrote the examples.

After the line "You must use one of the following formats" there are three
examples that each contain an email address with an @ in it. It may look like
the @ has to be there, but in the example above that the @ has been replaced
with " at ". If that's OK, then what other variations are OK? Is the USA-
centric date format mandatory for example, or are ISO 8601 dates permitted?
Does it matter if the day number has a leading zero? Do the lines have to
begin with asterisks and hyphens or can I use middle dots or en dashes
instead? Do I have to refer to a bug report as "(#42)" or can I write "See bug
42." instead? Does the address have to be an email address, or is a SIP
address OK since it has the same format?

Note: I have an idea of the answers to these questions. My point is that the
examples don't anwer them.

The question being discussed here seems to be how many changes should be
grouped together in a single changelog entry. Should there be one entry for
every CVS commit? One for each Koji build? One per day? One for every single
atomic change made, with only one line-with-a-dash under each line-with-an-
asterisk? What if someone were to use a single gigantic changelog entry in
their package, adding a new line-with-a-dash for every change but updating the
date instead of adding new lines-with-asterisks? Where is it written that that
would be wrong?

All of the examples contain one date, one name, one email address, one
version-release number and one change description. Should I conclude that each
entry must contain exactly one of each of those? If there may be multiple
change descriptions in a single entry, and maybe multiple version-release
numbers too, then what about multiple names or multiple dates?

Kevin's description here is closer to a specification of the syntax:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2009-April/027843.html
but even that doesn't address the question that you guys are arguing, which is
more semantic in nature. This argument wouldn't have happened if a
specification had existed.

Björn Persson
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:35 AM.

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