Re: Why Vcs-* fields are not at least recommended ?

[Ulrike Uhlig <ulrike@debian.org>]

Hi Alexis,

On 18.08.20 23:10, Alexis Murzeau wrote:

> I'm wondering why Vcs-* fields in debian/control (Vcs-Browser and/or Vcs-<type>)
> are not recommended (or maybe even strongly recommended) ? (I mean here that I think
> having Vcs-* fields should be recommended for active packages)

> There is no lintian tag for missing Vcs-* fields (not even a low severity one,
> but I don't know if it's because of lack of interest or because of the policy).

If one uses lintian in its pedantic mode, and a package is
co-maintained, i.e. has a Maintainer and Uploader field, then lintian
does recommend using a VCS:
https://lintian.debian.org/tags/co-maintained-package-with-no-vcs-fields.html

I agree that it might be useful to extend this tag to non co-maintained
packages as well, potentially at least in pedantic mode.

> Maybe the fact that we still have the package' source tarballs for each
> released version is enough, but this loose the VCS history and ongoing work in
> case someone else wants to contribute too.

I fully agree with you here.

For  non actively maintained packages on could check them into Git
oneself and then start a history from there, and potentially update the
package.

For actively maintained packages I personally do not understand that
people in 2020 develop code without using a VCS and still put out only
tarballs. But I might be unaware of some corner cases where this is the
only way to do it.

 - ulrike