[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Real Life hits: need to give up packages for adoption

Christoph Haas wrote:
> Yes, of course. Besides some minor things I don't quite like about
> Subversion (merging looks like black magic for me and getting out old
> revisions of a file means typing the full URL for no reason) these are
> the actual problems I encountered with svn-buildpackage:
> * svn-upgrade
> Upgrading from a new upstream tarball has never worked here. Matthijs
> Mohlmann and I are maintaining the "pdns" (PowerDNS) package in a
> Subversion repository. That software isn't trivial but it's also no
> rocket science. Still svn-upgrade choked and left us alone like
> "something didn't work half way - what do you want to do?" and we ended
> up with a borked repository. Up to now we made a backup of the
> repository beforehand and took our chances. I believe we merged in the
> upstream changes manually. I didn't want to understand what svn-upgrade
> is doing under the hood so I felt left alone there.
I guess I will need to watch out for that.  I have only had one upstream
upgrade so far since using svn-buildpackage, and I have not had this
happen.  Though, many of my packages are trivial to maintain.

> * svn-inject
> Injecting new packages through svn-inject fails here. I get errors about
> the MKCOL method not being allowed on the remote WebDAV server. Perhaps
> it's a problem that the Apache runs on Sarge while I'm developing on
> Sid.
Not sure.  I have shell access and use the svn+ssh method for my
Subversion access.

> * svn-buildpackage
> The main script for building a package works well here. Just that the
> build-area doesn't seem to be tidied up automatically. A few failed
> attempts of building a package and that directory grows here. But
> building a package from the repository through pbuilder is very nice.
I have noticed this as well.

> Kudos to Eduard Bloch though. The scripts are pretty sophisticated. And
> I already spent some time getting it working with pbuilder (see [1]).
Yes, it is just too bad that they did not use a respectable language,
like Python.  As it is, there are many features I would like to see
added, but all I can do is file wishlist bugs, as I don't anything about
Perl besides how to spell it.

Your link on getting svn-buildpackage and pbuilder working was
excellent.  I used as a guide as well when I needed to integrate the two.

> In the end I still favor Subversion over any other RCS. Although Simon
> Richter made me try Git today. And I like to try out new things so I can
> find better arguments against it. :)
I agree that (and pardon my paraphrasing), subversion is the worst form
of revision control, except for all the others that have been tried.
Personally, none of the others make sense.

>>The only problem I have encountered so far is that the Horde team uses
>>Arch, which I simply cannot understand.  I have spent quite a while
>>reading through the documentation and messing with it, but Arch seems to
>>me to not make any rational sense.
> Neither to me. Bazaar (as made and used by the Ubuntu staff) seems to be
> a "better arch". Still I couldn't be convinced to use it.
> Disclaimer: I'm not a Subversion guru. So I might as well just be
> ignorant.

Roberto C. Sanchez

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: