Panu Matilainen píše v Út 27. 01. 2009 v 14:05 +0200:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Dan Horák wrote:
>> Would be trivial to add, sure. The question is, would it make any
>> difference to either
>> a) asking packagers to add pointer to existing %changelog when rebasing
>> packages
>
> There is a chance that the changelog attached in the source archive is
> developer oriented (based on CVS/SVN/whatever) while the web-based one
> is user oriented.
I sense a misunderstanding here... what I meant is instead of just
the "update to x.y.z", drop in a link too - simply something like
(taking sqlite has an example):
* Thu Jan 22 2009 Panu Matilainen <pmatilai(a)redhat.com> - 3.6.10-1
- update to 3.6.10 (
http://www.sqlite.org/releaselog/3_6_10.html)
Having something like that in the existing changelog would mean it's also
trivial to browse back in history, whereas a single tag would only point
to the current release.
Yes, there was a misunderstanding and your idea looks good.
>> b) have such a field in bodhi instead
>
> The keyword should be "automation". Why to copy&paste when it can be
> done by script. I can imagine a "hidden" field in spec (special comment
> like #changelog: http://....) that is transformed into a field in bodhi.
> It can be a macro in spec that gets evaluated before including in bodhi,
> etc.
If such a thing is in the package, obviously it should be pulled
automatically by bodhi. You almost certainly need to copy-paste the link
once anyway - if the field only exists in bodhi then there's just one
copy-paste. Mind you, I'm not trying to shoot this down, just looking at
possibilities :)
I am looking for possibilities too, so there is chance we will meet
somewhere :-)
Dan