RE: RPM's are bad

On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Gregory Leblanc wrote:

> > IMO if the package includes a comprehensive changelog, 
> > include it in the RPM
> > with %doc.  Make the changelog section of the spec file 
> > contain changes
> > made to the packaging.
> Are there any GNOME spec files that -don't- work this way?  We need to have
> a chat with the application authors if they're putting the application
> changelog into the RPM %changelog

I don't know if the reson for the changelog in a rpm is for the changes in
the spec file. But if it is I think it's broken.  These changelog entries
are for the end-user. He downloads a rpmfile and he can run rpm on it with
the flag --changelog to see it. I know that when I do that I like see
the changes that have been made to the program since the last couple of
versions rather then changes to the spec-file since the beginning of time.

For example. Use the rpm --changelog on gnome-core and you get:

> rpm -q gnome-core --changelog
* lör feb 26 2000 Gregory McLean <gregm comstar net>

- Updated to 1.1.4
- Autogenerate the %files section.

* lör okt 16 1999 Gregory McLean <gregm comstar net>

- Updated to 1.0.50
- Sorted the language specific stuff out.

* sön okt 03 1999 Gregory McLean <gregm comstar net>

- updated to 1.0.50
- Overhauled the %files section.

* lör nov 21 1998 Pablo Saratxaga <srtxg chanae alphanet ch>

- Cleaned %files section
- added spanish and french translations for rpm

* ons sep 23 1998 Michael Fulbright <msf redhat com>

- Built 0.30 release

Really. Do the enduser need these kind of changelogs? The changes to the
spec-file should go into a changelog just like anything else when you add
stuff to the cvs.

I can't see any resons why you would like to present that changelog to the


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]