Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le Mar 2 février 2010 21:14, Björn Persson a écrit :
> > Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> >> This changelog style conforms to the existing spec, it has been in use
> >> in Fedora for several years, it may surprise you, but changing the spec
> >> retroactively is not the way to prov
Le Mar 2 février 2010 21:14, Björn Persson a écrit :
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>> This changelog style conforms to the existing spec, it has been in use in
>> Fedora for several years, it may surprise you, but changing the spec
>> retroactively is not the way to prove your point.
>
> There's a spe
Le Mar 2 février 2010 22:11, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
>
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>> This changelog style conforms to the existing spec, it has been in use in
>> Fedora for several years, it may surprise you, but changing the spec
>> retroactively is not the way to prove your point.
>
> Uh, the Fedo
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> This changelog style conforms to the existing spec, it has been in use in
> Fedora for several years, it may surprise you, but changing the spec
> retroactively is not the way to prove your point.
Uh, the Fedora packaging guidelines DO have the power to change the
require
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> This changelog style conforms to the existing spec, it has been in use in
> Fedora for several years, it may surprise you, but changing the spec
> retroactively is not the way to prove your point.
There's a spec? Where? I want to read it.
Björn Persson
signature.asc
Des
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
> Le Mar 2 février 2010 11:35, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
>>
>> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>>> That is your interpretation. I see nothing on this page to support this
>>> claim. And actually it is contrary to format #3 logic, since its main
>>> difference with o
Le Mar 2 février 2010 11:35, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
>
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>> That is your interpretation. I see nothing on this page to support this
>> claim. And actually it is contrary to format #3 logic, since its main
>> difference with other changelog formats is that the version is not
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> That is your interpretation. I see nothing on this page to support this
> claim. And actually it is contrary to format #3 logic, since its main
> difference with other changelog formats is that the version is not part of
> the entry header, so there's no reason to limit one
Le Lun 1 février 2010 22:05, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
>
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>> Sure it is, it's changelog style #3 of
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs
>
> No, it's not style #3. It's 2 or more style #3 entries collapsed into 1,
> which is not one of the allowed
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Sure it is, it's changelog style #3 of
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs
No, it's not style #3. It's 2 or more style #3 entries collapsed into 1,
which is not one of the allowed formats.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lis
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 12:33 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 17:04 +, Mat Booth wrote:
> > On 29 January 2010 17:00, Pierre-Yves wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:59 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> > >> Here's where it gets weird:
> > >> 0.6.10-1 then 0.6.10-2 then 0.6.9-4
Le lundi 01 février 2010 à 19:47 +0100, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > This is one reason I prefer to use the following changelog style
> >
> > * Thu Jan 28 2010 Michael Schwendt <>
> > - 2.2-10
> > - Fix tuple_copy() further (it was completely broken as the mowgli
> > dict
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:47:20 +0100, Kevin wrote:
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > This is one reason I prefer to use the following changelog style
> >
> > * Thu Jan 28 2010 Michael Schwendt
> > - 2.2-10
> > - Fix tuple_copy() further (it was completely broken as the mowgli
> > dict wasn't copied a
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> This is one reason I prefer to use the following changelog style
>
> * Thu Jan 28 2010 Michael Schwendt
> - 2.2-10
> - Fix tuple_copy() further (it was completely broken as the mowgli
> dict wasn't copied at all).
> - 2.2-9
> - Let set_tuple_cb() work on a copied tuple
Le Ven 29 janvier 2010 17:59, David Malcolm a écrit :
>
> On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 15:45 +, Rawhide Report wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Looks like whatever generates this report is reordering items in the
> changelog relative to the %changelog in the specfile, but in some
> surprising ways; is this a k
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 17:04 +, Mat Booth wrote:
> On 29 January 2010 17:00, Pierre-Yves wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:59 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> >> Here's where it gets weird:
> >> 0.6.10-1 then 0.6.10-2 then 0.6.9-4 then 0.6.9-2 seems an arbitrary
> >> ordering:
> > It is only wei
On 29 January 2010 17:00, Pierre-Yves wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:59 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
>> Here's where it gets weird:
>> 0.6.10-1 then 0.6.10-2 then 0.6.9-4 then 0.6.9-2 seems an arbitrary
>> ordering:
> It is only weird/inverted when the date are the same.
>
> Pierre
> --
> devel
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:59 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> Here's where it gets weird:
> 0.6.10-1 then 0.6.10-2 then 0.6.9-4 then 0.6.9-2 seems an arbitrary
> ordering:
It is only weird/inverted when the date are the same.
Pierre
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.f
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 15:45 +, Rawhide Report wrote:
[snip]
Looks like whatever generates this report is reordering items in the
changelog relative to the %changelog in the specfile, but in some
surprising ways; is this a known issue?
Normally the items in a %changelog are in order most-rece
19 matches
Mail list logo
