Re: Drawbacks of lack of mandated packaging workflow (Was: Re: Bug#1036884: 64-bit time_t: updated archive analysis, proposed transition plan with timeline)
Hi,
On 06.01.24 22:15, Gioele Barabucci wrote:
Aren't all these problems just inherent in Debian's lack of a mandated
packaging tooling and workflow [1,2]?
We have a mandated tooling and workflow.
The tooling follows an interface that is defined in Policy. The
interface is deliberately designed to be as flexible as possible. Most
packages do not require this flexibility, which is why a majority use a
library of helper functions that trades that flexibility for ease of use.
This works because it is a solution that solves 95% of cases, and does
not impose requirements on the remaining 5%. If you wanted 100% of
packages to use this, and turn this into the new interface, then all
these corner cases would need to be handled as well, and the interface
extended.
We also have a version control system -- the Debian archive. It, too,
has a different focus than other version control systems, because it
also includes a mirroring strategy.
Switching to git would, again, require replication of the missing
functionality, and it would require a lot of work to properly define all
these interfaces and make sure they are extensible in the future.
Simon
Reply to: