[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: NEWS.Debian revisited

Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> My reasons for arguing were basically these:
> - by having all of the information in one place, folks who are reading the
>   changelog also get the benefit of the NEWS stuff, which is often useful in
>   a changelog context as well

OTOH if I'm already reading a package's changelog file, I have probably
exhausted most other documentation, including README.Debian and
NEWS.Debian if present. Unless I'm reading it during upgrade of course.

> - (a selfish one) I wouldn't have to figure out how to appropriately display
>   both kinds of information in apt-listchanges

Heh, yes.

> > I would like to get support into apt-listchanges for displaying those news
> > entries. I can think of two useful modes and a variation:
> > 
> > 1. Display only news items, no changelogs.
> > 
> > 2. Display changelogs and news items
> >    a. List all the new news first, at the top.
> >    b. List new news right before a package's changelog entry.
> > 
> > What to display should be configurable of course. If we decided to make
> > apt-listchanges part of the base system, it might be good to change the
> > default behavior to 1.
> I agree re: option 1; that would be a sane configuration default.

If you agree with that, then implementing that with a merged changelog
would require some considerable munging/grepping of the changelog, would
it not?

> Option 2b works out to pretty much exactly the combined news/changelog
> format that I had in mind.  I don't like 2a very much because it spreads out
> the information about a single package, such that I would have to navigate
> around the output in order to correlate the news with the changelog.

OTOH, I really like 2a, as I don't always make it to the end of
apt-listchanges output during a large upgrade.

> > Matt, do you have strong feelings against separate NEWS.Debian files, or
> > would something like this be accepted, if it were done right and you were
> > given a patch?
> If I am in the minority, I will not hold back the entire NEWS concept just
> because of the file format issue, because I want to see this happen.

Ok, well I don't know how to tell if you are in the minority. In the old
thread I think you were mostly alone in wanting a separate file.

> The current mechanism is designed to extract only one file, so the pipe
> mechanism works out pretty well.  You could have changed things to call
> extract_changelog twice as well.  I think, though, that if apt-listchanges
> is to start extracting multiple files, I'd probably want to just extract
> them to a temporary directory.  That way, it doesn't have to make more
> passes over the .deb, nor would I have to deal with getting them both in a
> single stream.

Yes a temp directory is probably a good idea.

see shy jo

Attachment: pgpv7vTeeqLMe.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: