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

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

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 18:58:19 +0100, Ian Jackson
<ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> said:  

        I am going to comment on this with my "I use arch" hat on.

> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: [PATCH] proposed v3 source format using
> .git.tar.gz"):
>> What exactly is the goal of this dpkg addition?

> This is a sensible question to ask.  Goals I would suggest:

        Thanks for clarifying.

> * Enable all people who work with a Debian source package to do so
>   with the benefits of the distributed revision control system in use,
>   which includes smart merging, and so forth;

        This, of course, means you have to have the distributed SCM
 system installed and configured, and perhaps a bit of configuration
 work done. 

        Shipping an arch working dir, with {arch} and .arch-ids; allows
 people to see the log history, and, after they have registered the
 repository this was checked from, to do diffs and so on.  Commits won't
 be possible unless they have commit access to the distributed repo; but
 they can tag/branch to their local repo, and ask the developer to pull
 from there.

        This requires no dpkg change.

> * Specifically, to enable the above for NMUers in such a way that a
>   minimum of additional work is needed by the maintainer to merge
>   changes.

        Sure. Tag the checked out tree to a repo you have commit rights
 to, ask developers to pull from there.

> * Abolish dpatch (and similar excresences) and specifically to get
>   back to the point where a Debian source package can be unpacked to
>   the point of seeing the source code without having to execute any of
>   it.

        All for it.

> * Make life easier for derived distributions by making it possible for
>   them to merge from us, and us from them, using all of the usual
>   features of the RCSs in use.


> * Make it possible (once more) for NMUers to make a change to a
>   package without having to learn and interact with a revision control
>   system, even if the maintainers are using one.  Ie, make it possible
>   to acquire the source, inspect it, edit it, build it, test it, and
>   upload it, using only tools which either do not depend on the RCS or
>   which entirely hide it, without disrupting or being disrupted by the
>   revision control system.

        Hmm, OK. Well, as long as people ignore the extra directories,
 shipping an arch checked out dir will allow people to work with plain
 old make, etc, with no changes to dpkg.

> * When an RCS-agnostic NMUer has done their work, still give the
>   benefit of the RCS to the maintainer (and others) when merging the
>   NMUer's work.

        Well, this is tricky. I am not sure how the NMU'er communicates
 with the developer; I assume it is by sending in a diff. If so, this
 works with an arch checked out dir, and unmodified dpkg.

        So, in conclusion, I can happily say that no change in dpkg is
 needed to help arch using developers accomplish these goals; they
 need just stop stripping out the {arch} and .arch-id directories to
 accomplish all these.

        Silencing Lintian would be a good start.

If I am elected, the concrete barriers around the WHITE HOUSE will be
replaced by tasteful foam replicas of ANN MARGARET!
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: