4:26 p.m.
Aloas,
is it ok to use multiple changelog entries for one e-v-r?
E.g.:
%changelog
* Thu Jun 15 2003 Joe Packager <joe at gmail.com> - 1.0-2
- Added LICENSE file (#43).
* Wed Jun 14 2003 Joe Packager <joe at gmail.com> - 1.0-2
- Added README file (#42).
Regards,
Till
4:30 p.m.
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 23:26:00 +0200
Till Maas <opensource(a)till.name> wrote:
Aloas,
is it ok to use multiple changelog entries for one e-v-r?
E.g.:
%changelog
* Thu Jun 15 2003 Joe Packager <joe at gmail.com> - 1.0-2
- Added LICENSE file (#43).
* Wed Jun 14 2003 Joe Packager <joe at gmail.com> - 1.0-2
- Added README file (#42).
Why not just lump them all into the latest date that you make changes?
Often times I make a change, and if the build doesn't work or I don't
get to it right away, then the next day I make another change, I just
mark the date as that day and list both changes under that day/nvr.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
5:48 p.m.
On Do August 2 2007, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 23:26:00 +0200
Till Maas <opensource(a)till.name> wrote:
> is it ok to use multiple changelog entries for one e-v-r?
>
> E.g.:
>
> %changelog
> * Thu Jun 15 2003 Joe Packager <joe at gmail.com> - 1.0-2
> - Added LICENSE file (#43).
>
> * Wed Jun 14 2003 Joe Packager <joe at gmail.com> - 1.0-2
> - Added README file (#42).
Why not just lump them all into the latest date that you make changes?
Because I did not find a vim plugin, that supports this, yet.
Often times I make a change, and if the build doesn't work or I
don't
get to it right away, then the next day I make another change, I just
mark the date as that day and list both changes under that day/nvr.
Do you do this manually?
Regards,
Till
6:55 p.m.
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:48:19 +0200
Till Maas <opensource(a)till.name> wrote:
Do you do this manually?
Yeah, call me old fashioned, I don't use any plugins or any special
thing to manage my specs. Mostly because I haven't discovered them.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
4:30 p.m.
On Friday 03 August 2007, Till Maas wrote:
Aloas,
is it ok to use multiple changelog entries for one e-v-r?
E.g.:
%changelog
* Thu Jun 15 2003 Joe Packager <joe at gmail.com> - 1.0-2
- Added LICENSE file (#43).
* Wed Jun 14 2003 Joe Packager <joe at gmail.com> - 1.0-2
- Added README file (#42).
I'm not sure what that would be useful for - people looking for changes
between x.y-z and 1.0-2 would start to wonder what exactly did happen in
1.0-2 and whether one of the above is a copy-pasto and should be eg. 1.0-3
instead.
Personally I just leave out the version from changes I make without building a
package, and sometimes combine accumulated changes into one changelog entry
when finally building them.
4:31 p.m.
Till Maas wrote:
Aloas,
is it ok to use multiple changelog entries for one e-v-r?
E.g.:
%changelog
* Thu Jun 15 2003 Joe Packager <joe at gmail.com> - 1.0-2
- Added LICENSE file (#43).
* Wed Jun 14 2003 Joe Packager <joe at gmail.com> - 1.0-2
- Added README file (#42).
I'd say no. Just put both changes under one entry w/the most recent
date. At least, that's what I do. I believe rpmlint may complain about
the above case, and if not, it probably should, since its bogus to have
two different builds w/the same evr.
--
Jarod Wilson
jwilson(a)redhat.com
6101
days inactive
6105
days old
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Jarod Wilson -
Jesse Keating -
Till Maas -
Ville Skyttä