Re: Enhancing 3.0 (git) source package format
]] Goswin von Brederlow
| Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> writes:
|
| > ]] Goswin von Brederlow
| > | My feeling is that 3.0 (git) format adds bloat to the source packages
| > | that hardly anyone ever uses, makes it that much harder for any
| > | non-git user to edit the source and is of little extra value when the
| > | maintainers git is month or years further along.
| >
| > Even if the upstream VCS has moved on, you save a bit of bandwidth by
| > having something that comes with half the history, even if you don't
| > have all of it.
|
| Weigh that against the bandwidth spend for mirrors and for people that
| do not need or want the history and the extra cost in terms of needing
| more CD/DVD images to contain a source snapshot. Also the cost for
| snapshot.debian.org having to have the extra bloat for every single
| version uploaded. For a worst case take linux-2.6 as example.
If we (as I do) consider history part of the source, that size increase
is irrelevant.
| Also why would you download the source package in the first place if
| what you really want is a git checkout. The extra bandwidth for a git
| checkout would only be as much as the 3.0 (git) format would lack in
| history.
Because I want to add a patch that changes a behaviour in a stable
package, and I want to add that patch in a way that gives me the least
work, both when writing it, but also when bringing it forward. Also, my
mirror might be local; git.d.o and random upstream repositories
certainly are not.
| My expectation is also that I can "apt-get source foo", edit some
| files and debuild without having to learn a new tool and completly
| foreign workflow. The various patch systems used with 1.0 packages
| destroy that somewhat but 3.0 (quilt) restores that feature again. 3.0
| (git) on the other hand goes in the wrong direction as it makes the
| package even more special.
I'm trying to come up with a reasonable workflow rather than getting
entangled in what intricasies of the different source package formats.
At the moment, what I want is best done with a bundle in debian/ and a
3.0 (native) package and a README.source.
| But in the end it comes down to taste I guess. Do you want to force
| people to use git or are you friendly to those that don't use it?
| So I will shut up now before we go around the circle again.
I don't see why you think «ship the history with the package» (which is
what I want to do) implies that you can't do apt-get source foo ; cd
foo-* ; hack.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
Reply to: