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

Re: [PATCH] proposed v3 source format using .git.tar.gz

On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 08:45:08AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> I'm
> quite attached to being able to peek inside source packages quickly by
> sshing over to the local mirror I keep at home which grabs everything
> overnight so that I don't have to wait for it to download; particularly
> so for large source packages.

How is that better than running "apt-get source" against your local
mirror, though?

Alternatively, is it really a problem to have your local mirror
autogenerate v1 source packages in the same way v1source.qa.d.o presumably

(I have a strong adverse reaction to duplicated information, so shipping
the working tree in .git format and .orig.tar.gz format irks me,
particularly if it's required)

> > >   * Derivative distributions who are slow to upgrade their dpkg-source
> > >     could still interoperate to some degree.
> > They'd need to pull sources from the autogenerated url; though they'd
> > still probably have Build-Depends: issues if they're not updating
> > packages generally.
> Oh, I was referring more to the buildd base system and archive
> maintenance code too; dak needs to be updated in order to accept format
> 3.0 source packages, for instance.

Well, you'd need an entirely new .dsc to use a v3 source package with
an un-updated dak (or launchpad or whatever), that didn't contain the
.git.tar.gz (or whatever) elements at all, so I don't personally see a
lot of difference between just generating a new .dsc and generating a
new .dsc and .tar.gz.

(It might be just me, but I'm getting the feeling that implementing
Wig&Pen via this v3 format is probably easier than implementing it via
the v2 format...)

I might be off my rocker, but I'm not seeing any reason why we couldn't
allow uploads of v3 format packages to experimental while blocking them
for unstable etc, presuming dpkg somewhere supported them.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: