On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Sven-Hendrik Haase <sh@lutzhaase.com> wrote:
On 06/23/2011 04:19 PM, Thomas Dziedzic wrote:
I would like to bring up a point which has been annoying me for a while and I would like to get it out there.
I will argue that the changelog feature is unnecessary in pacman/PKGBUILDs.
1.) It's a feature rarely used by anyone, e.g. there are changelogs
which
exist which haven't been updated in years which I encounter and remove right away.
2.)Svn log usually serves the same purpose, and I can not think of any benefits changelogs provide over svn log.
3.)I can not think of one package I have encountered that included a useful changelog.
Some ways to go about removing it are: declare deprecated -> remove after some time or just remove changelog support right away The last option might be viable given its small audience.
+1 for all the reasons you stated.
I favor removing changelog right away.
So confused. Should we remove deltas too? And support for bz2/xz packages and databases?
Deltas have a future use, I would be crazy to suggest that we should remove them. There is nothing that could replace deltas easily. I would be even more crazy to suggest removing xz pkg support as we are currently using this format in all the packages. There is especially nothing that could replace this.
Why on earth would we remove a feature that someone might use, even if Arch is not making extensive use of it? This is incredibly shortsighted.
I just want to bring this up because there is an alternative method (svn log) which I think works just as well if not better.
Sure, but this is Arch specific. I obviously had no intention of removing delta, xz, etc. but my point is the changelog functionality is exactly the same- it is a tool to use, but not something to be removed if it is not used. -Dan