[pacman-dev] Discussion about deprecating/removing the changelog feature from pacman.
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.
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.
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? 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. -Dan
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.
-Dan
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
The documentation for changelog-related features takes up like 2 or 3 lines of `man PKGBUILD`, so even though it may not be as useful as other features, it carries almost no baggage. -Kerrick
(and I'm sure the code and documentation elsewhere doesn't amount to a lot either) -Kerrick Staley On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Kerrick Staley <mail@kerrickstaley.com>wrote:
The documentation for changelog-related features takes up like 2 or 3 lines of `man PKGBUILD`, so even though it may not be as useful as other features, it carries almost no baggage.
-Kerrick
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
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
Fair argument, but I have already made my argument that it isn't the same since changelog has an alternative method unlike the other features. If you hold your statement, then we can at least agree to disagree. @Kerrick If this was a simple matter of making the man page smaller, I would have probably rewritten some sentences and submitted a patch :P It's a matter of deprecating features that have better methods or are at the point of being more annoying then useful (ime).
On Thursday 23 June 2011 11:54:34 Dan McGee wrote:
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. I agree with Dan here.
I don't use the changelog feature, but maybe I, and we in general, should start to use it. pacman -Qc $pkg works for offline usage and is more fast then open the browser->go to the package page->svn log. -- Andrea
On 06/23/2011 09:09 PM, Andrea Scarpino wrote:
On Thursday 23 June 2011 11:54:34 Dan McGee wrote:
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. I agree with Dan here.
I don't use the changelog feature, but maybe I, and we in general, should start to use it. pacman -Qc $pkg works for offline usage and is more fast then open the browser->go to the package page->svn log.
The main problem is not all packages providing a CHANGELOG in their packages. I'd say the feature is usefull, for archlinux more usefull if it's used more often ;) -- Jelle van der Waa
Am 23.06.2011 17:04, schrieb Dan McGee:
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?
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 second Dan's opinion here. => NAK We use changelogs quite extensively, and all should keep in mind that pacman -Qc PACKAGENAME will help any user that doesn't need to know where your PKGBUILD tree is managed / tracked / whatever... I would suggest that makepkg should be extended to have a way to add the output of a command (e.g. "svn log") as changelog to a package... That would make the life easier for any maintainer and would solve the problem even for the lazy arch package maintainers... :-P Thanks, Marc
On 24/06/11 01:04, Dan McGee 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?
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.
Agreed. It is not being removed. As an Arch packager, I have to admit I find changlogs to be a pain to maintain. But that is because I am lazy. Many other distros enforce packagers to write a changelog and it gets done. So this is an Arch issue and not a pacman one. Feature is staying. Allan
participants (8)
-
Allan McRae
-
Andrea Scarpino
-
Dan McGee
-
Jelle van der Waa
-
Kerrick Staley
-
Marc - A. Dahlhaus
-
Sven-Hendrik Haase
-
Thomas Dziedzic