Re: No native packages?
On 28 January 2013 18:17, Roger Leigh <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 09:36:45AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Tollef Fog Heen <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> > ]] Gergely Nagy
>> >> No, not really. I don't really care what tools one uses, as long as the
>> >> result is reasonably easy *and* reliable to work with. Since VCS can be
>> >> stale, and quite often does not include neither NMUs, nor backports,
>> >> that fails the reliable requirement.
>> > It sounds like you are arguing that we should just ship the the
>> > repository in the source package, then. No chance of it ever getting
>> > out of date, trivial to find the merge points and missing patches
>> > between two packages and fits much better with a VCS-driven workflow.
>> Yes, many of us would like that, which is why it's been repeatedly
>> discussed at Debconfs, but no one has come up with a good solution to the
>> fact that this requires reviewing the entire VCS archive for DFSG-freeness
>> and rewriting history if any non-free code is ever introduced in it. (Or,
>> well, changing the requirements we have around source package freeness,
>> but that seems less likely.)
> Maybe I forgot the answer, but at least in terms of git and the dpkg
> 3.0 (git) format, why can't we simply make use of shallow cloning? We
How many revisions does one need to shallow clone to have an .orig.
tree and a debian tree?
As one commonly still wants to see what changes are applied if any.
If the answer is 2 and git can diff them, than it's great.
(Or 3 to include pristine-tar delta?! do we still care about
pristine-tar at this point?!)