Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Don't assume on me, sometimes I'm too stupid or stubborn for my own > good ;-) Heh, ok. I just can't imagine doing it since if I were to check out some of my svn repos starting at the root rather than at trunk, I'd need hundreds of gigabytes of disk. :-) > Maybe (part of) our problem lies with svn-buildpackage being meant to > be used on simple trees, not on repositories with so many independent > modules as ours? Maybe we should rather seek a more apt structure, > which allows us to check out the whole tree at once without getting > the whole structure. We could do this by having a slightly unkosher > managing of tags and branches, something like (taking from our current > usage): I use such a layout for most of my packages; the d-i team uses it, etc. There's nothing unkosher about it. With the exception of svn-buildpackage and its companion tools svn-inject and svn-upgrade, all other svn tools that I know of will support a combined trunk structure transparently. The basic rule is that you should be able to s/trunk/tags/ or s/trunk/branches/ in any svn uri and get to the tags or branches; any reasonable svn tool will support any repository that follows that rule no matter how it's laid out. If you use svn-buildpackage, you have to deal with its nonstandard way of finding the tags and branches, which defaults to looking in ../branches and ../tags from the svn uri, which will not work with a combined trunk. So you'd have to work around this by setting up a .svn/deb-layout for each package giving the actual uris to use. This would of course, be slightly annoying especially since that file can't go under revision control. Probably a simple perl script could set up the files though. -- see shy jo  I have a svn-uupgrade that supports this transparently, but the maintainer of svn-update did not seem interested in it.
Description: Digital signature