pacman updates: are there any changelogs?

stefan1975 · 2008-03-12 08:54:48

Hello,

on a daily basis I update my Arch system with a "pacman -Syu" usually accepting all new packages it wants to update. For example today I got "xfwm4 4.4.2-2" and installed it blindly even though I had not problems whatsoever with "xfwm4 4.4.2-1".

Is there any changelog available for updated packages other then manually looking at the sources for each single package? Sometimes I want to know why a package is updated and what has been fixed or which functionality has been added to the package, and I mean in general not just for xfwm4.

thanks,
stefan

Allan · 2008-03-12 09:23:16

pacman -Qc works on some packages where the maintainer has made a change log. Other than that, you need to visit the packages webpage.

Last edited by Allan (2008-03-12 09:25:44)

stefan1975 · 2008-03-12 10:06:11

Allan wrote:

pacman -Qc works on some packages where the maintainer has made a change log. Other than that, you need to visit the packages webpage.

hi,

thanks for the reply. Should such change logs be made mandatory then? I have looked at the site for a number of packages but is is hardly readable at all. I mean for the xfwm4 package I visited http://www.archlinux.org/packages/3917/ but that did not provide me with much information apart from the package builds, the filenames, etc. it does not tell What has changed and Why I would need it.

For some packages I might rely on an old setting, config file or whatever and would need to decide why to upgrade (security fix, extra features, etc.) so changelogs would be a really welcome addition to Arch as would be package signing.

stefan

Allan · 2008-03-12 10:09:50

http://www.archlinux.org/packages/3917/
then click "View CVS entries" > "PKGBUILD" > "previous 1.22"

It appears a patch of some variety has been added...

stefan1975 · 2008-03-12 10:23:53

Allan wrote:

http://www.archlinux.org/packages/3917/
then click "View CVS entries" > "PKGBUILD" > "previous 1.22"
It appears a patch of some variety has been added...

Hi,

you are fast! I did see that now and thanks.

However for me xfwm was more or less a general example to indicate something that imho can be improved in our great distribution.
Package Signing and Changelogs are something - I believe - that we need and browsing to a PKGBUILD site are not what I see as the perfect way to discover such especially when there are lots of packages and for relatively unexperienced people.

Another example is that sometimes I would like to see why there are certain dependencies. For example I installed conky last week and noticed that it had a depency for wireless_tools and it might be me but I had no clue why it would be dependent on that package nor did I find it on the site.

stefan.

Last edited by stefan1975 (2008-03-12 10:33:11)

dyscoria · 2008-03-12 10:50:33

stefan1975 wrote:

Another example is that sometimes I would like to see why there are certain dependencies. For example I installed conky last week and noticed that it had a depency for wireless_tools and it might be me but I had no clue why it would be dependent on that package nor did I find it on the site.

One of conky's features is displaying network statistics.

I don't think it's general practice to give descriptions of why there are certain dependencies, and would be time better spent doing something else.

On changelogs though, it seems odd to have the function 'pacman -Qc' and yet not have changelogs for almost everything on my system (i haven't found a package with a changelog yet ). There are better things to do than provide changelogs, as these can be found on most originating websites, although if it's a revision of a package (e.g. kernel26 2.6.24.3-3) (which obviously can't be found in the changelogs of the kernel.org website), maybe a changelog should be mandatory.

Last edited by dyscoria (2008-03-12 10:51:26)

shining · 2008-03-12 11:02:08

Indeed, there are not many changelog yet, but well... When I care, I just look at webcvs.
find all available changelog :
find /var/lib/pacman/local -name changelog

And changelog in pacman shouldn't be the upstream changelog, it should be about the arch specific changes made on package revisions.
See pacman -Qc git for an example.

brebs · 2008-03-12 11:07:33

Changelogs aren't that important. Gentoo had 'em, and I don't miss 'em. Only ever read a small fraction of 'em.

The most important piece of information, "is this gonna screw up my PC?" is never contained in the changelog anyway

Cerebral · 2008-03-12 13:04:43

I've been trying to remember to add changelogs to all my packages as I update them - it's tough to get that step integrated into my workflow, since it's become a bit of a habit and changelog support in pacman is only a recent feature.

carlocci · 2008-03-12 13:24:47

brebs wrote:

The most important piece of information, "is this gonna screw up my PC?" is never contained in the changelog anyway

But it contains another important piece of information: "is upgrading worth it?"

shining · 2008-03-12 14:12:27

carlocci wrote:

But it contains another important piece of information: "is upgrading worth it?"

To answer this question, and the original post, don't use Arch if you are not planning to keep the system up-to-date.

The arch specific packages revisions are usually made for a reason, which often comes from the bug tracker. So either you trust the arch devs and upgrade, or you don't and you don't use Arch.
And upstream bump, that's just the way Arch works, it tries to keep up with the upstream upgrades (and some users even complain when it isn't done fast enough...). So if you don't like this, you don't use arch either

stefan1975 · 2008-03-12 16:06:14

shining wrote:

To answer this question, and the original post, don't use Arch if you are not planning to keep the system up-to-date.
The arch specific packages revisions are usually made for a reason, which often comes from the bug tracker. So either you trust the arch devs and upgrade, or you don't and you don't use Arch.
And upstream bump, that's just the way Arch works, it tries to keep up with the upstream upgrades (and some users even complain when it isn't done fast enough...). So if you don't like this, you don't use arch either

Hi,

thanks for your insight although i don't totally agree. I use Arch because I like Arch. i like the way it works, the KISS philosophy, its speed, pacman and especially because I can tinker with it and make it work the way I want to and not like *buntu which tells me what I want and how I want it. imho just blindly accepting any and all updates Arch gives me is not the Arch way but more the *buntu way. I always update my system, as I stated, and like the fact that Arch is technologically advanced and because I trust the Arch system and its devs I install nearly any update that is released, even some from the testing repo.

However that has no relevance at all that I am interested in WHY packages are updated. Being technologically apt I probably even have a great interest in such then the average *buntu user and would like to see changelogs and package signing. A change log can be short and to the point if it is just an upstream patch, or a reference to the bugs in question on the bugtracker.

In short I DO keep my system up to date but sometimes it is nice to know WHY, especially with with new packages of the same application version, from like x.y.z-1 to x.y.z-2

but to not use arch because of wanting additional information? I have been a linux sysadmin for 10 years now and we always keep our servers up to date but never just install any and every update just because it is available. IMHO it is a smart thing to review the available updates before installing them to see if you actually need them or that they don't break something that might have been working okay before. Take for example a kernel update. My Arch laptop is not a server but I do depend on it for work, so if a new kernel update was released i would like to know if this was because of a security fix or maybe just because the new logo was introduced in the bootsplash before deciding to upgrade immediately (fictional example) or to upgrade my home-test-arch system first.

stefan

Last edited by stefan1975 (2008-03-12 16:11:29)

shining · 2008-03-12 19:48:01

stefan1975 wrote:

shining wrote:
To answer this question, and the original post, don't use Arch if you are not planning to keep the system up-to-date.
The arch specific packages revisions are usually made for a reason, which often comes from the bug tracker. So either you trust the arch devs and upgrade, or you don't and you don't use Arch.
And upstream bump, that's just the way Arch works, it tries to keep up with the upstream upgrades (and some users even complain when it isn't done fast enough...). So if you don't like this, you don't use arch either
Hi,
thanks for your insight although i don't totally agree. I use Arch because I like Arch. i like the way it works, the KISS philosophy, its speed, pacman and especially because I can tinker with it and make it work the way I want to and not like *buntu which tells me what I want and how I want it. imho just blindly accepting any and all updates Arch gives me is not the Arch way but more the *buntu way. I always update my system, as I stated, and like the fact that Arch is technologically advanced and because I trust the Arch system and its devs I install nearly any update that is released, even some from the testing repo.
However that has no relevance at all that I am interested in WHY packages are updated. Being technologically apt I probably even have a great interest in such then the average *buntu user and would like to see changelogs and package signing. A change log can be short and to the point if it is just an upstream patch, or a reference to the bugs in question on the bugtracker.
In short I DO keep my system up to date but sometimes it is nice to know WHY, especially with with new packages of the same application version, from like x.y.z-1 to x.y.z-2
but to not use arch because of wanting additional information? I have been a linux sysadmin for 10 years now and we always keep our servers up to date but never just install any and every update just because it is available. IMHO it is a smart thing to review the available updates before installing them to see if you actually need them or that they don't break something that might have been working okay before. Take for example a kernel update. My Arch laptop is not a server but I do depend on it for work, so if a new kernel update was released i would like to know if this was because of a security fix or maybe just because the new logo was introduced in the bootsplash before deciding to upgrade immediately (fictional example) or to upgrade my home-test-arch system first.

I just wanted to say that many packages interact with each other, and that you can't always simply pick the ones you want like that.
Not updating a package might actually break it.
Of course, if you are aware of all the interactions, and fully know your system, then you will know what you can or can not do.
But well, if you want to keep the updates to the minimum, you are probably better off running debian stable, and only doing security updates.

Otherwise, if you do keep your system up to date, and simply want to know what changed, as it seems to be the case, then I perfectly understand

carlocci · 2008-03-12 19:49:42

thank you stefan1975, that's exactly what I meant, only deeper, longer and better written

Snowman · 2008-03-12 20:30:48

Cerebral wrote:

I've been trying to remember to add changelogs to all my packages as I update them - it's tough to get that step integrated into my workflow, since it's become a bit of a habit and changelog support in pacman is only a recent feature.

I'm in the same situation. Plus on subsequent updates, you need to remember to update the ChangeLog..

mmmasterluke · 2008-03-12 21:34:25

I found this thread because I have the exact same problem as Stefan. For example, I tried to find out what was changed in kernel26 2.6.24.3-3 but I can't find this information. Or at least not in a convenient simple way.

Go Stefan .

phrakture · 2008-03-12 22:09:14

You know, I have used arch for 5 years on numerous machines, and never wondered "man why did so-and-so upgrade package-foo!?". If I cared, I checked CVS to see what change was made. But most of the time I didn't care.

Like shining said, if you want to maintain your system in partially upgraded states, then use another distro. We don't support half-upgraded machines, and will not pity you when things start breaking

cactus · 2008-03-12 22:13:53

if the $pkgver increments..the update is because upstream version was updated. if the $pkgrel increments, the update is because the package needed changing (config change, build error, other fix).

if you want to know more about why the $pkgrel was incremented, check cvs maybe?
what more do you need to know?

shining · 2008-03-12 22:33:37

cactus wrote:

if you want to know more about why the $pkgrel was incremented, check cvs maybe?
what more do you need to know?

Apparently, they need an easier way to get the same information. I don't see what's so hard about using webcvs..
Especially since the testing links were fixed, yay!

disturbed1 · 2008-03-13 22:44:05

cactus wrote:

if the $pkgver increments..the update is because upstream version was updated. if the $pkgrel increments, the update is because the package needed changing (config change, build error, other fix).
if you want to know more about why the $pkgrel was incremented, check cvs maybe?
what more do you need to know?

That's a good explanation

Myself being a new Arch user, was used to digging through the change logs to see what was going to break on this upgrade. After a couple of days, I figured out what was going on. And believe this is where most people are coming from when complaining about change logs.

Arch is a direct build of the source, with maybe a patch or 2 from upstream, or tested/trusted sources. Where as Debain and Ubuntu will hack and slash the source code to where the .deb built is nothing close to the original source. If you don't want/agree with the patch, remove it. Don't like the configure options? Change them.

When ever an upgrade comes about, and I need to know what's changed, I just compare the diffs on the pkgbuild. More times than not, it's a new upstream. If I'm concerned, I'll visit the upstream site and see what's new.

I'm glad the Arch devs aren't maintaining change logs. Let them do more important stuff..................Like Gnome 2.22

stefan1975 · 2008-03-14 16:50:32

phrakture wrote:

You know, I have used arch for 5 years on numerous machines, and never wondered "man why did so-and-so upgrade package-foo!?". If I cared, I checked CVS to see what change was made. But most of the time I didn't care.
Like shining said, if you want to maintain your system in partially upgraded states, then use another distro. We don't support half-upgraded machines, and will not pity you when things start breaking

Hi there,

thanks for your insight. I have no intention whatsoever to keep my system in a partially upgraded state, I thought I expressed that in my posts above. I update all my linux systems on a near daily basis and even use packages from testing/unstable. That was not the point I was trying to make, I LIKE the fact that Arch is cutting edge and updates often.

I just wanted to know if htere were release notes, i mean there is even a pacman option for it. I believe that it was a legitimate question and it being merely a question the answer can be that there aren't / won't be release notes, but the fact that "you" don't read any doesn't mean that "they" (us i presume) don't want to, my 10 years with *ux made me interested in the internals of some packages.

On the M$ systems i hardly ever read anything that comes with the updates but on Arch I was merely curious which # bugs from the bugtracker were fixed by a certain updated package, I could not find such information on the cvs website.

thanks again and thumbs up on a great distro and an active and respectful community,
stefan.

shining · 2008-03-14 17:11:05

stefan1975 wrote:

On the M$ systems i hardly ever read anything that comes with the updates but on Arch I was merely curious which # bugs from the bugtracker were fixed by a certain updated package, I could not find such information on the cvs website.

Wait, you didn't find out how to use webcvs? Why didn't you ask before?
Suppose you want to check out kernel26 :
1) go to archlinux.org , package search : kernel26
2) select the kernel26 package (either the one from core or the one from testing when there is one)
3) click on view cvs entries
4) select a file, for example the PKGBUILD
now you will see the last commit log. You can click on View branch to see all the last ones.
And for each commit, you can see the difference to the previous one.

Arch Linux

#1 2008-03-12 08:54:48

pacman updates: are there any changelogs?

#2 2008-03-12 09:23:16

Re: pacman updates: are there any changelogs?

#3 2008-03-12 10:06:11

Re: pacman updates: are there any changelogs?

#4 2008-03-12 10:09:50

Re: pacman updates: are there any changelogs?

#5 2008-03-12 10:23:53

Re: pacman updates: are there any changelogs?

#6 2008-03-12 10:50:33

Re: pacman updates: are there any changelogs?

#7 2008-03-12 11:02:08

Re: pacman updates: are there any changelogs?

#8 2008-03-12 11:07:33

Re: pacman updates: are there any changelogs?

#9 2008-03-12 13:04:43

Re: pacman updates: are there any changelogs?

#10 2008-03-12 13:24:47

Re: pacman updates: are there any changelogs?

#11 2008-03-12 14:12:27

Re: pacman updates: are there any changelogs?

#12 2008-03-12 16:06:14

Re: pacman updates: are there any changelogs?

#13 2008-03-12 19:48:01

Re: pacman updates: are there any changelogs?

#14 2008-03-12 19:49:42

Re: pacman updates: are there any changelogs?

#15 2008-03-12 20:30:48

Re: pacman updates: are there any changelogs?

#16 2008-03-12 21:34:25

Re: pacman updates: are there any changelogs?

#17 2008-03-12 22:09:14

Re: pacman updates: are there any changelogs?

#18 2008-03-12 22:13:53

Re: pacman updates: are there any changelogs?

#19 2008-03-12 22:33:37

Re: pacman updates: are there any changelogs?

#20 2008-03-13 22:44:05

Re: pacman updates: are there any changelogs?

#21 2008-03-14 16:50:32

Re: pacman updates: are there any changelogs?

#22 2008-03-14 17:11:05

Re: pacman updates: are there any changelogs?

Board footer