Re: Why Vcs-* fields are not at least recommended ?
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 02:18:08AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> 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.
Please, pretty please, make `debcheckout <every_package>` possible
Groeten
Geert Stappers
DD
--
Silence is hard to parse
Reply to: