packit: propose-update does not generate proper changelog from release tag
As discussed in issue #298, the idea was that the changelog gets generated from the upstream release tag (or the github description, etc). I think that even worked right when I tested that, but it seems to have regressed. For cockpit-ostree 179 it now just generates:
--- a/cockpit-ostree.spec
+++ b/cockpit-ostree.spec
@@ -1,12 +1,17 @@
Name: cockpit-ostree
-Version: 178
+Version: 179
Release: 1%{?dist}
BuildArch: noarch
Summary: Cockpit user interface for rpm-ostree
License: LGPLv2+
Requires: cockpit-bridge >= 125
Requires: cockpit-system >= 125
-Requires: /usr/libexec/rpm-ostreed
+# On RHEL Atomic 7, the package name is different (curiously not on CentOS Atomic)
+%if 0%{?rhel} == 7
+Requires: rpm-ostree-client
+%else
+Requires: rpm-ostree
+%endif
# Download from https://github.com/cockpit-project/cockpit-ostree/releases
Source: cockpit-ostree-%{version}.tar.gz
@@ -27,6 +32,9 @@ find %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/cockpit/ -name '*.map' | xargs rm --verbose
%{_datadir}/cockpit/*
%changelog
+* Wed Jul 24 2019 Martin Pitt <martin@piware.de> - 179-1
+- new upstream release: 179
+
* Fri Jul 12 2019 Martin Pitt <martin@piware.de> - 178-1
- new upstream release: 178
(that’s just the .spec change, ignoring changes to sources and .gitignore).
This is a bit sad, the changelog should include some useful information, bug refs, etc. I did 178 with an earlier packit master as well, same problem (but that was after #298 landed).
❱❱❱ git -C ~/tmp/packit/ rev-parse HEAD
efb466df8567c2050b09f6854b515250ac1dfa7a
About this issue
- Original URL
- State: closed
- Created 5 years ago
- Comments: 21 (10 by maintainers)
I am not sure about the priority, but it looks still relevant to me.
Maybe I was just imagining that it worked before then? Ideally we want to copy the upstream git tag description, i. e. what can be seen on the GitHub /releases page. In this case:
If packit can’t or doesn’t want to (for clean architecture reasons) look at the tag, would it be possible to feed that in through an option?
Edit: @TomasTomecek highlighted the request a bit
Franto, I just adding this to the upstream project and wanna discuss with you.
bump 😃
bump