Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > As to it being an XS- field, dpkg-dev doesn't warn at all about building > > packages with such a field (unlike an XB- field), so I don't really > > care, although it seems it would be better to lose the XS- if possible. > > Note that we were more discussing about losing the X- part (for the > records, a sample field is "XS-X-Vcs-Svn"), which in my mind is the part > representing the non officialness of the field. > > I don't know at all if it's possible to remove the XS- part. I don't > really care on the PTS side, but I suspect it wont get in the Sources > file without the XS- prefix. Am I wrong? Request for help on this ... The "X" in the XS- part already is intended to mean what your extra X- is being used to mean, actually. XS- means that the field is unofficial. To make a Vcs-Svn field work, dpkg-dev needs to be modified to recognise that field. A simple modification but it would need to be done for all the other ones for other RCSes, which could be a problem since there are more and more of them. If we wanted to use a formalised field with no X- prefix, then something like this might be more scalable: Vcs: svn svn://... My preference is either the above or XS-Vcs-* > > Have you thought at all about automated systems that could be built on > > top of this? Things like a repo browser that can browse (and find > > recent changes in) all packages, or mirrors of repos that arn't hosted > > at svn.debian.org, or what have you. > > I haven't yet thought about going that far, but they are all ideas which > are whetting my appetite :-) Another one is sucking them all in to a grand unified tracking repo using a single RCS (or as many RCSes as everything can be converted to). -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature