On 29 January 2010 17:00, Pierre-Yves <pingou@pingoured.fr> wrote:
> 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
>

See this thread:
http://www.mail-archive.com/fedora-devel-list@redhat.com/msg04173.html

--
Mat Booth
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 17:04 +0000, Mat Booth wrote:
> On 29 January 2010 17:00, Pierre-Yves <pingou@pingoured.fr> wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
> See this thread:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/fedora-devel-list@redhat.com/msg04173.html
>
Thanks; for reference the closest I can see to a bug report about this
seems to be bulletpoint 2 within
http://yum.baseurl.org/ticket/7#comment:1

(sorry; doomed with other stuff right now and thus unable to fix this
myself).

Dave

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

Le Ven 29 janvier 2010 17:59, David Malcolm a écrit :
>
> On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 15:45 +0000, Rawhide Report wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Looks like whatever generates this report is reordering items in the
> changelog relative to the %changelog in the specfile, but in some
> surprising ways; is this a known issue?
>
> Normally the items in a %changelog are in order most-recent through
> least-recent.
>
> But in this report, see e.g. how 2.2-9 appears, then 2.2-10:
>> audacious-2.2-10.fc13
>> ---------------------
>> * Thu Jan 28 2010 Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@fedoraproject.org> - 2.2-9
>> - Let set_tuple_cb() work on a copied tuple
>> (the metadata updates flood is too racy IMO).
>> - Fix tuple_copy().
>>
>> * 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).

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().


--
Nicolas Mailhot


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

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 12:33 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 17:04 +0000, Mat Booth wrote:
> > On 29 January 2010 17:00, Pierre-Yves <pingou@pingoured.fr> wrote:
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> > See this thread:
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/fedora-devel-list@redhat.com/msg04173.html
> >
> Thanks; for reference the closest I can see to a bug report about this
> seems to be bulletpoint 2 within
> http://yum.baseurl.org/ticket/7#comment:1
>
> (sorry; doomed with other stuff right now and thus unable to fix this
> myself).

I've fixed this in upstream yum, so it should be fixed for rawhide when
yum is next updated there (other releases are likely to stay "broken"
long term).

For the gory details:

http://yum.baseurl.org/gitweb?p=yum.git;a=commit;h=83ea015350e40b11013dd8 d03f07558ea4f4cad9

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

Le Lun 1 février 2010 22:05, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
>
> 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.

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

--
Nicolas Mailhot


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

Le Mar 2 février 2010 11:35, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
>
> 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.

Again, this is your interpretation

> Our automated tools (e.g. make clog as
> already pointed out by Michael Schwendt) also expect that.

IIRC when this guideline was written rpm devs complained the EVR was never
supposed to be in the changelog header, it was supposed to end at the email
mode and the EVR was an emacs rpm mode addition. Nervertheless FPC chose to
accept existing practices.

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.

--
Nicolas Mailhot


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

On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
> Le Mar 2 février 2010 11:35, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
>>
>> 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.
>
> Again, this is your interpretation
>
>> Our automated tools (e.g. make clog as
>> already pointed out by Michael Schwendt) also expect that.
>
> IIRC when this guideline was written rpm devs complained the EVR was never
> supposed to be in the changelog header, it was supposed to end at the email
> mode and the EVR was an emacs rpm mode addition. Nervertheless FPC chose to
> accept existing practices.

This still applies: in the changelog styles #1 and #2, the EVR ends up
being a part of the email address which is hardly "right".
rpm -q --qf "[%{changelogname}
]" <pkg>

> 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.

The problem in the example you provided in
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-February/130062.html
is that it lumps two EVR's into a single changelog entry. That just
doesn't make sense.

Taking the same changelog snippet (style #1):
* 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).

* Thu Jan 28 2010 Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@fedoraproject.org> - 2.2-9
- Let set_tuple_cb() work on a copied tuple
(the metadata updates flood is too racy IMO).
- Fix tuple_copy().

In style #3 it would be:
* 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).

* Thu Jan 28 2010 Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@fedoraproject.org>
- 2.2-9
- Let set_tuple_cb() work on a copied tuple
(the metadata updates flood is too racy IMO).
- Fix tuple_copy().

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

Le Mar 2 février 2010 22:11, Kevin Kofler 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.
>
> 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.

Again, last time changelog was discussed some practises like putting the
version in the changelog header were accepted even though they conflict with
rpm internals (as was re-affirmed again by rpm people).

This is a much bigger problem than your cosmetic issues with my way of using
changelog style #3 (which, incidentally, means my changelogs are not randomly
reordered so in practice it works better than other styles)

--
Nicolas Mailhot


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

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

--
Nicolas Mailhot


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