On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Dan Fruehauf <malko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey, > > I tend to be against trimming. I was just looking at the binutils > changelog (goes back to 1997): > $ rpm -q --changelog binutils | wc -c > 54984 > > That's around 50K, and compressed (RPMs are compressed): > $ rpm -q --changelog binutils | gzip | wc -c > 15552 > > 15K is nothing. Really. I like to see the whole history of a package, it's > nice and fun. > > Perhaps other packages has larger changelogs. I guess common sense is what > we should use, but generally speaking I'd say don't trim, as it doesn't > really matter and it's cleaner to have a full changelog, rather than a > story which starts somewhere in the middle. > > Just out of curiosity, what packages have huge changelogs? > A lot of them are the ones you'd expect -- toolchain-related packages that have been around forever like gcc, gdb, glibc. SELinux related packages have pretty huge changelogs, too. I think the winner for greatest changelog growth rate is likely rhc (the OpenShift client): over 350 entries in less than two years. :-) Andy > > BR > Dan Fruehauf. > > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Rex Dieter <rdie...@math.unl.edu> wrote: > >> Richard Hughes wrote: >> >> > Is there any guidance as when to trim %changelog down to size? Some >> > packages have thousands of lines of spec file dating back over 15 >> > years which seem kinda redundant now we're using git. >> >> To me, common sense dictates that it's perfectly ok to trim the length of >> the changelog as long as items that are relevant to the current release >> are >> kept intact. Use your best judgement where that position lies. >> >> -- rex >> >> -- >> devel mailing list >> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel