Pavel Raiskup wrote: > Questionnaire right at the beginning, so if you tl;dr, you don't miss it: > > https://forms.gle/Jgr13vtRkiUwLb6W6
The questionnaire itself is short, but understanding all the proposals
is considerable work. That's where TL;DR will happen.
> Let's stop requiring Release bumps for each build. And let's put an
> additional tag into Release, like proposed in [4]:
>
> "Release: 1%{?dist}%{?buildtag}"
>
> ... and let the build-system to put there an artificial (but increasing for
> subsequent build IDs) value.
I am of course in favor of this, as I've already suggested it myself.
> Or alternatively, teach the build-system to enhance
> %dist in a similar fashion, as suggested in [5].
That would also work technically, although it would turn the name
"dist" into a misnomer.
> %changelog
> * This package doesn't provide changelog metadata, check it online
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/<name>/commits/<last_commit>
To the extent that users read changelogs at all, I think they would be
more interested in the upstream changelog than in the Fedora Git
changelog.
> Side question: Is it really useful to put "Rebuilt for
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_XX_Mass_Rebuild"; into changelogs?
I don't see any use for those entries. There is already a build
timestamp in the package metadata.
Björn Persson
pgpMsq9P1nJQE.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signatur
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
