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

Re: No native packages?

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 18:17:20 +0000, Roger Leigh wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 09:36:45AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> 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 out of date, trivial to find the merge points and missing patches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?

At which point you have lost all the advantages of shipping the
repository that Tollef mentioned, as far as I can tell.  You're back to
needing an external repository that's kept up to date if you ever need
to get at the history.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: