Re: [Spacewalk-devel] %changelogs in our packages
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 08:36:05PM +0200, Sandro red Mathys wrote: On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Cliff cpe...@redhat.com wrote: I'd be interested in knowing if there is any general guideline from Fedora for package maintainers that we would need to adhere too? I'm pretty sure the fedora guidelines only state to add a new entry with every new release but does never say if or when you should remove old entries nor that you have to keep them forever. So I asked spot who wrote most of that guidelines and is sort of responsible for that stuff: hi spot, I was looking at the guidelines regarding the removal of old changelog entries but I didn't find anything on that matter. Do you think it would be okay to remove entries that are 1 year old? if you do, put them in a file and put the file in the package and put a note in the rpm changelog that says something like: * package changelogs older than June 2009 can be found in Fedora.Changelog.txt I do not think this really applies. Fedora's changelog entries are entries for changes done for given version of the package, basically describing changes done for the releases for one primary .tar.gz version. For example, on my Fedora 12, $ rpm -q --changelog perl | tail -3 * Thu Nov 29 2007 Robin Norwood rnorw...@redhat.com - 4:5.10.0_RC2-0.1 - first attempt at building 5.10.0 $ rpm -ql perl | grep -i changelog | wc -l 0 When perl was rebased to 5.10, new .tar.gz was put into Source*, and any changelog entries for older perls were dropped. With Spacewalk, we bump the version with every release, which means that we rebase with every new rpm we build. All packages where Spacewalk is the upstream have release equal to 1. So if we were following the Fedora example, we would never have more than one item in the %changelog, because after all, this rpm has vanilla upstream package and vanilla upstream .tar.gz, with no changes. I believe that storing the older changelog entries in an extra file is not needed. They don't include the full history anyway (we weren't that good maintaining the changelog in the past, so there are gaps there), and as the sources are available, it's possible to get the logs and exact changes from the git repo anyway. Currently I'm planning on removing changelog entries for 0.4 and earlier. -- Jan Pazdziora Principal Software Engineer, Satellite Engineering, Red Hat ___ Spacewalk-devel mailing list Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
Re: [Spacewalk-devel] %changelogs in our packages
On 06/01/2010 04:59 PM, Jan Pazdziora wrote: Hello, what is our position on the length of the %changelog section in our rpms? Now that we've released Spacewalk 1.0 and most core Spacewalk packages are in version 1.0, might it make sense to trim any changelog items for versions pre 1.0? Or maybe any changelog items older than say two years? One of the reasons I care about the length of the changelog section of our rpms is that it pollutes our (Spacewalk's) database when such rpms are synced/pushed -- we store each item as separate record in rhnPackageChangeLog, and if new version of the same package is added, it generally contains all the versions that the previous version contained, plus one new item/record. Which of course we might want to refactor somehow, eventually. But still -- do we really need changelogs going all the way back? Disks are cheap. And I very often went through the changelogs to see in which version something changed (not our packages). I suppose that for poeple who do not have our repo cloned and do not know git, this information can be usefull. Trimming will save how much data? Several KB? I vote to keep it as is. -- Miroslav Suchy Red Hat Satellite Engineering ___ Spacewalk-devel mailing list Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
Re: [Spacewalk-devel] %changelogs in our packages
On Tuesday 01 June 2010 16:59:29 Jan Pazdziora wrote: Hello, what is our position on the length of the %changelog section in our rpms? Now that we've released Spacewalk 1.0 and most core Spacewalk packages are in version 1.0, might it make sense to trim any changelog items for versions pre 1.0? Or maybe any changelog items older than say two years? One of the reasons I care about the length of the changelog section of our rpms is that it pollutes our (Spacewalk's) database when such rpms are synced/pushed -- we store each item as separate record in rhnPackageChangeLog, and if new version of the same package is added, it generally contains all the versions that the previous version contained, plus one new item/record. Which of course we might want to refactor somehow, eventually. But still -- do we really need changelogs going all the way back? I'd vote for trimming down the length of changelogs (1 year perhaps). -Milan ___ Spacewalk-devel mailing list Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
Re: [Spacewalk-devel] %changelogs in our packages
Milan Zazrivec wrote: On Tuesday 01 June 2010 16:59:29 Jan Pazdziora wrote: Hello, what is our position on the length of the %changelog section in our rpms? Now that we've released Spacewalk 1.0 and most core Spacewalk packages are in version 1.0, might it make sense to trim any changelog items for versions pre 1.0? Or maybe any changelog items older than say two years? One of the reasons I care about the length of the changelog section of our rpms is that it pollutes our (Spacewalk's) database when such rpms are synced/pushed -- we store each item as separate record in rhnPackageChangeLog, and if new version of the same package is added, it generally contains all the versions that the previous version contained, plus one new item/record. Which of course we might want to refactor somehow, eventually. But still -- do we really need changelogs going all the way back? I'd vote for trimming down the length of changelogs (1 year perhaps). -Milan ___ Spacewalk-devel mailing list Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel I'd be interested in knowing if there is any general guideline from Fedora for package maintainers that we would need to adhere too? Otherwise, I'd go with a year as well. This allows for those changelogs to be consistent through Satellite releases which use those packages as well. Cliff. ___ Spacewalk-devel mailing list Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
