On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 09:40 -0600, Tommy Reynolds wrote:
Uttered "Paul W. Frields" <stickster(a)gmail.com>,
spake thus:
> On the other hand, a RPM %changelog often has more than one
> explanatory line for details. I will try my hand at this one if
> you agree, since I don't want to try your patience, and since I
> want to see if I understand the concept well enough to DIY. (DIM?)
Go ahead and welcome. I just didn't have time to investigate line
wrapping the %changelog entries, but I'd be happy for your to take a
swing.
> I suppose, thanks to your display of XML skillz, we can even validate
> this info during the build process to make sure nothing breaks! Sweet.
BTW, order matters in the %changelog entries. I always take the
version and release numbers from the very first <revision> element.
That's why there is that mandatory, only-one-alternative "ordered="
attribute; it's really documentation.
Cool, that means I grokked it right. Although that means revision
histories will be written differently than they are now, that's not a
problem. DocBook doesn't mandate an order for them, so any way we want
to do them is acceptable.
--
Paul W. Frields, RHCE
http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
Fedora Documentation Project:
http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/