[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Reducing allowed Vcs for packaging?

On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 02:24:26PM +0100, Bastian Germann wrote:
> Hi!
> During the last weeks I had a look at the Vcs situation in Debian. Currently,
> there are eight possible systems allowed and one might specify several of them for
> one package. No package makes use of several Vcs references and frankly I do not
> see why this was supported in the first place.
> For the allowed systems the situation in unstable is the following:
> arch is used by 2 packages pointing to bad URLs: #1025510, 1025511.
> bzr is used by ~50 packages, half of which point to bad URLs.
> cvs is used by 3 packages, 2 of which point to bad URLs: #1031312, #1031313.
> svn is used by ~130 packages, many of which point to bad URLs.
> darcs, mtn, and hg are not used.
> We can see: The Vcs wars are over; with git there is a clear winner and in my
> opinion, we should remove the possibility to use most of them for package
> maintenance. It is one additional barrier to get into package maintenance and
> we should remove the barriers that are not necessary.

People that use e.g. subversion could just remove the Vcs-svn field and pretend
that they do not use any VCS. What does that gain us ?

I have sympathy for maintainers that use the same VCS as usptream. I have sympathy for 
upstream of a VCS to use that VCS instead of GIT.

... Unfortunately some projects I work with did not convert their whole history to GIT 
and I find useful that Debian still provide subversion and mercurial to access older
commits (and dead projects history).

Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Reply to: