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

Re: Crush 2.0 abandoned



On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 18:23:51 +0200
Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> > > > Get dpkg-cross merged into dpkg as soon as multiarch is supportable.
> 
> > Outlined above.
> 
> BTW, anyone have any strong feelings about moving dpkg-cross repo from CVS
> to git?

Yes, me. I don't want to use git for anything. Subversion is the only
real option if you want me to still work with dpkg-cross and you want
to move from CVS. Sorry. I detest git and refuse to use it. dpkg-cross
is trivial, it doesn't warrant the overkill of a system designed for
massive projects like the Linux kernel. IMNSHO git is being abused by
overuse with projects that just don't warrant such a tool. TBH, I don't
see that CVS is that much of an issue for dpkg-cross, there is very
little left to do in dpkg-cross before it is migrated into dpkg.

There is already an old version of dpkg-cross in Emdebian SVN, it only
needs to be brought up to date with current CVS and then declared in
debian/control VCS fields.

http://www.emdebian.org/svn/browser/current/host/trunk/dpkg-cross/trunk

I don't think we need to alioth setup anymore, dpkg-cross >= 2.0 is
really an Emdebian-only thing - it certainly will need to be to be
merged into dpkg and dpkg-dev. True, the merge itself might be easier
via git but the final steps need to be done in CVS/SVN and then you can
use whatever tool you like to accomplish the actual merge but I don't
think it's worth making changes in dpkg-cross using git. The merge
should be after the final, final, final release of dpkg-cross. (The
merge won't happen until after multiarch is working anyway.)

It's fairly pointless changing the tool at this stage of the life of
dpkg-cross, that is why I didn't complete the change from CVS to SVN.
It wasn't worth it.

-- 


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

Attachment: pgpYMhsEW1Sz4.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: