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. Thanks, Kel. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201003020750.58757....@otaku42.de
