https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1728381
Cole Robinson <crobinso(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
|needinfo?(crobinso(a)redhat.c |
|om) |
--- Comment #11 from Cole Robinson <crobinso(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Alex Williamson from comment #10)
> > > - Changelog in prescribed format.
> > >
> > > Changelog lines should be individually prefixed with '-' and
contain a
> > > version string
> > > at the end.
> > >
> > > Your changelog there looks more like it should be a NEWS.md file which
you
> > > can ship
> > > as %doc. Using that is better for upstream too IMO because other distros
> > > won't want a .spec file to be the canonical release notes.
> > >
> > > For Fedora spec the changelog should be the package version history so
all
> > > of those
> > > entries should be trimmed except the most recent one basically.
> >
> > Fixed. What's present now is still entirely auto-generated from the git
> > log, as I think that is our canonical release notes. However, the
> > formatting now matches the Fedora requirements and we're rolling together
> > all the commit subjects between tags. I think this will allow me to merge
> > the upstream auto-generated spec file with the Fedora maintained one fairly
> > automatically, assuming it's good practice to maintain the logs for Fedora
> > specific rebuilds.
>
> Dealing with changelogs across upstream hosted spec and downstream is a pain.
> Most projects I work on just don't include a %changelog upstream. But
> whatever
> works for you as long as the format is appropriate for Fedora.
Would it be considered bad practice in Fedora if the changelog is rewritten
between releases? For instance if the upstream auto-generation changes the
formatting or contents for previous releases (as I've done in 0.50), how
much, if any effort should we make in the Fedora package to retain released
changelog contents as-is, versus simply maintaining compliant formatting?
Same question for the Fedora specific changelog entries. Would it be
considered required or just best-effort to maintain, for example, a mass
rebuild 0.49-2 changelog entry when I upload 0.50?
Fedora guidelines say to have one changelog entry per Fedora build. However
plenty of packages also trim changelogs after a certain time, rather than
have lots of historical data there. Nothing enforces it, but if it can be
helped I would try to not throw it away.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs
Ok, yes, the previous srpm was generated from the upstream Makefile with a
local archive rather than directly using the github link. The contents are
the same, but I assume you're looking at md5sum between the two. I hadn't
really figured out this part of the process yet. For the version uploaded
below, I'm using 'spectool -g -R mdevctl.spec' to fetch the upstream source
and 'rpmbuild -bs --rmsource mdevctl.spec' to generate the srpm and cleanup
the upstream source tarball.
Yes, the fedora-review tool does an md5 comparison. For packages I own
upstream, I will upload the dist on release, then download it back and feed it
to the package build, just to be sure.
The only other change here is the changelog
format, which I hope doesn't churn your stomach or violate Fedora
standards.
Thanks!
Haven't seen entries like that before but I think it's fine.
Setting fedora-review+ . I will sponsor you too if needed
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component