Re: [RFH] Debian 2.6.32 CONFIG_WIRELESS_OLD_REGULATORY, wireless-regdb and crda
- To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: Paul Wise <email@example.com>, "John W. Linville" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Debian Devel <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Johannes Berg <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Kalle Valo <email@example.com>, "John S. Skogtvedt" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Debian/Ubuntu wpasupplicant Maintainers" <email@example.com>, Tim Gardner <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [RFH] Debian 2.6.32 CONFIG_WIRELESS_OLD_REGULATORY, wireless-regdb and crda
- From: Kel Modderman <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 07:50:58 +1000
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- References: <1265076642.3040.20.camel@chianamo> <[🔎] 1267459766.3962.58.camel@chianamo> <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Tuesday 02 March 2010 04:13:25 Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Paul Wise <email@example.com> 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.