Re: This topic died off; any resolution?
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: This topic died off; any resolution?
- From: Raphael Geissert <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:39:19 -0600
- Message-id: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 28 2009, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> writes:
>>> A special rule in debian/rules to duplicate apt-get source for
>>> people who are skeptical of thea rchive (and have an ill defined
>>> attack vector thay are being paranoid about) -- or to provide
>>> functionality that apt-get source is not a duplicate for?
>> Well, for complicated cases (like ffmpeg, where we have to fight with
>> svn:externals, external svn servers etc) it is very helpful to have such
>> a rule. Espc. if some user objects with some of the modifications and
>> needs to apply changes to it in order to get a slightly modified
> If you are talking about cases where there is no upstream
> tarball, and just SVN (or some other VCS), and these cannot be handled
> by uscan, then I agree, it would be nice to standardize the calling
I planned to add support for svn in version 4 watch files (it would be a
matter of svn info svn://domain.tld/path/to/repo and some data massaging).
But well, now that everyone is talking about it why not just tell what is
missing so that it can be addressed in version 4 watch files?
> My slight preference is a script with a well known name, since
> that script can then be extracted and used by DEHS/PTS like systems,
> without requireing that the whole source be unpoacked and
> ./debian/rules be runnable (I have sanity checks in my debian/rules)
What you want is #458789, which should be tagged wontfix because of all its
implications (extra needed packages, security risk, etc).