On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 11:40 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 18:01:57 -0500, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 05:37:29PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > Oh, no. *Bad* idea. It's an attack on the symptom, not the problem.
> No, it's a *good* idea IMO. Problem is it does't go all the way.
> WTH are changelogs doing in .spec files?!? This is the job of the version
> control system, not of packaging specifications.
Uhm, they document package changes.
Do you document your changes inside of the
In my understanding, *specs are one part of rpm's sources.
> It probably comes from the (misguided) school of thought that
> $Log$ in source files...
I disagree. Adding %changelogs to specs is not any different from $Log$.
Having an entry in an rpm-header containing the last change might be
useful for users being interested in the reason for a new rpm release,
but I fail to understand why having a full %changelog-history inside of
rpms or metadata files is useful.