Panu Matilainen píše v Út 27. 01. 2009 v 12:28 +0200:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Dan Horák wrote:
> Both sides in the "Lack if update information" thread are true. The
> presented information about changes is almost useless for the user, but
> rewriting the upstream changelogs into bodhi is a superfluous burden for
> the maintainers. There is, in my opinion, a technical solution for this
> issue that can make both sides happy.
>
> And it is new "ChangeLog" tag in RPM. It should be an URL pointing to
> upstream changelog and GUI package management tools can open a browser
> window to show the content, like they do for the home page.
>
> pros:
> - low overhead for maintainer
> - can provide complete info to the user even when he/she skips some
> updates
> - allows changelogs per sub-package
>
> cons:
> - slightly larger metadata
cons continued:
- It introduces a spec incompatibility, which can be taken care of in
Fedora land but not so easy for EPEL side of things. Dunno if our
buildsys ever does anything with the rpmbuild of the host system
(I seem to recall it doing some part there but could easily be wrong),
IF so this is pretty much a no-go.
I can't comment the buildsys issues, but it can be useful to break the
compatibility (in one direction only) now and then.
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.
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.
Dan