Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> writes: > I would instead suggest we deprecate packages not including upstream > source in their VCS. The weight of progress is against that practice; It is? Where can I read about this supposed weight of progress? Keeping the debian packaging files in a separate repository suits me just fine. > tools have improved so there is little excuse to do it Which tools in particular? Are you accounting for the full suite of VCSen that Debian's ‘VCS-*’ fields allow for? > it increasingly violates expections and makes things harder. > > Some examples: > > * git cherry-pick cannot be used I can't speak to that one as I don't know what the problems are. > * pristine-tar cannot be used The assumptions of ‘pristine-tar’ seem very Git-centric and are quite at odds with my chosen VCS (Bazaar). It demands a “treeish object”, I have no idea what that relates to in Bazaar. > * apt-get source now suggests running debcheckout when VCS fields are > present. But for such a package, debcheckout won't result in the same > source tree as does apt-get source. That sounds like a poor recommendation, then :-) > Adding baroque complications to the VCS fields doesn't deal with these > problems consistently I agree that it's undesirable to add baroque complications to the ‘VCS-*’ fields. -- \ “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “I think so, | `\ Brain, but if the plural of mouse is mice, wouldn't the plural | _o__) of spouse be spice?” —_Pinky and The Brain_ | Ben Finney
Attachment:
pgpNyj7ETzML3.pgp
Description: PGP signature