Re: Are two Vcs-{Git|Svn|...} and Vcs-Browser fields sensible?
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 05:38:05PM +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> I must say that I do not like this proposal. The current situation does result
> in under-maintained packages requiring churn, but that's true for many aspects
> of them, not least their policy version. It's a good indicator of which
> packages need some attention.
There are way better indicators than changes of Debian infrastructure
which render control file information incorrect or invalid to find
outdated packages. I do not like to steal this thread but feel free to
ask me if I should go more into detail.
> That's not what I dislike about the suggestion, though. I think it makes the
> cognitive load of the control file larger. You have to know there are special
> rules that exist for some URLs, but not all. It ties the function of the control
> file closely to Debian, and if other control users like Ubuntu implement
> something similar, there are even more special cases for a maintainer to have
> to understand. A simple URL like we have now is quite self-describing, and if
> you find a control file in the wild you don't need any additional expert
> knowledge to use it.
I admit you have a point here and as other answers to your posting are
mentioning a server side solution in dak might be more preferable. I
just can repeat that I'd be happy with any solution that keeps the Vcs-*
fields I might inject today remain valid over the next couple of years.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: