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 out of date, trivial to find the merge points and missing patches 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. Cheers, Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature