Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> writes: > Quoting Gard Spreemann (2021-12-02 12:31:30) >> >> Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> writes: >> >> > I also wonder if it is time to split debian/watch out of Debian >> > source packages, since upstream download locations generally change >> > independently of the Debian package and so information about >> > upstream download locations probably should be maintained >> > independently. >> >> I very much agree. I don't understand the logic of tying upstream >> checking to a particular version of a source package. The fact that >> some version of a package once upon a time could locate and download >> new upstream versions using a particular recipe is of no use if said >> recipe becomes outdated at any later time. >> >> It makes a lot more sense to provide this service in a way that allows >> it to be modified/updated/improved/fixed with no regards to the actual >> packages that may use it. That could be as simple as a uscan service >> with watch files that can be individually and independently modified. > > I find it helpful for our packages to include information about where > and how (at the time of its release) that package was monitoring for > upstream releases. It helps working decentralized - both for preparing > packages for Debian and for working on Debian-derived packages, both > without needing access to somewhere central for this "watch" > information. Would it make sense for a package to contain a snapshot of the relevant metadata in the hypothetical "centralized-and-often-updated watch service" at the time in enters into the archives? > Therefore I like the proposal to have Debian project scanners > aggressively look for _newest_ watch file for a packaging project, > including looking up declared Vcs-* hints for not-yet-released work. Indeed, that sounds like a better idea than what I suggest above! -- Gard
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature