On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Kel Modderman <k...@otaku42.de> wrote: > On Tuesday 02 March 2010 04:13:25 Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Paul Wise <p...@debian.org> wrote: >> > On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 10:47 -0500, John W. Linville wrote: >> > >> >> FWIW, I don't create the tarballs. Perhaps we could ask Johannes to >> >> do something in his scripts that create them? Beyond that I don't >> >> see much point in checking-in a ChangeLog. >> >> I can add that too. >> >> > It definitely shouldn't be checked into git, but rather generated from >> > the git commit logs; with git2cl, git log or similar. With an autotools >> > based build system you would add a command to the Makefile.am so that >> > automake runs git2cl during 'make dist' / 'make distcheck'. For >> > non-autotools based projects you usually won't have a standard 'make >> > dist' so it would need to be added to whatever script is the equivalent. >> > >> >> Do you like that git2cl output? It seems rather ugly to me... >> > >> > Its the standard ancient GNU form for a ChangeLog. I have no opinion on >> > its aesthetics and I don't think it matters what format it has really. >> >> I think the format is indeed pretty ugly, can't we just do: >> >> git log v0.9.8..v0.9.9 > ChangeLog >> >> I've attached an example output of this on the iw package for example. >> Paul, does Debian packaging not care the format the ChangeLog is on? > > FWIW, I do not think all of this is necessary, the information stored in the > git repository is rich and readily available. We're getting pedantic here.
Can you guys upstream a package into Debian with a gitweb URL reference? Luis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/43e72e891003011356l7491007co1e6837e2a64d8...@mail.gmail.com
