On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:10:04PM +0200, 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) They are just information fields. You cannot fill them if you aren't using a VCS. And we cannot recommend using a VCS because we don't usually recommend workflows. > I acknowledge that previously, packages might not have been developed using > a VCS as said in the policy. But I think now most packages have a VCS where > it is developed. I'm sure (almost) all of these packages already have Vcs-* tags. > Also, I see some orphaned packages in the QA group now actively maintained > without VCS, which seems counterproductive if someone else wants to contribute > too. > In that case, this would be almost like a NMU I guess, but against an > "non official maintainer" with manual merges (or lost changes). > > Or maybe orphaned package with QA upload are not supposed to be always > collaboratively maintained ? (I'm new to these concepts, but to me the > response to this should be "no"). I don't think anything is "supposed" here. We don't recommend workflows and if you need to make just one upload for an orphaned package you don't need to touch any VCS. And for packages without a repo somebody would need to create one which is extra work when you need to make just one upload. -- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature