On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:55:10AM -0300, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva wrote:
Hi. Excerpts from Joachim Breitner's message of Sex Abr 08 07:17:09 -0300 2011: (...)Some of them are in git repositories (e.g. ConfigFile), and I’m not motivated to remember the exact steps for those.Maybe it's time to raise the two VCS versus one VCS discussion again. PET is only available for darcs, there are considerably more packages in darcs than in git[0], and it's not cool indeed to have to remember two procedures. Not only remember, but actually writing two build scripts, since I, and probably others, do everything using shell scripts. The whole purpose of the groups is to make easier the handle of a group of packages, and this is achieved by keeping things homogenous. Most library packages have a common debian directory, and it would be very good if we could work with all DHG packages with the same procedure. So, asking again, is anyone against using darcs for all (the debian dir of) DHG packages?
While I don't particularly like darcs these days (compared to git, particularly git-buildpackage), I'll drop my opposition for agda* in the interests of team unity. Feel free to move the packages over and update Vcs-*). I'd also like to put in a special request for haskell-binary and haskell-src-exts to be transitioned, as these would allow agda to be uploaded. Cheers, Iain
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature