Re: Perl4caml packaged
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 08:28:19PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 01:26:06AM +0100, sylvain.le-gall@polytechnique.org wrote:
> > Well, i think you know my point of view... I think it is better to have
> > a main repository for all debian ocaml packages :
> > - if a problem arise in one package, that you need help from another DD,
> > it is the best way to share effort ( i have some experienced syncing
> > with Mr Edward -- was really easy ).
>
> Indeed some sort of a repository does aid that effort. But Debian
> packages are highly independant little units and don't really require a
> central repository.
>
At least we agree on this point.
> > - if you are away, that some of us need to do some special things... it
> > is better to have one working version ( for example i am used to
> > inject watch file in debian/... I can do it on packages that doesn't
> > belong to me, without the need to call every maintainer to say : hey
> > it would be a good idea to do this or that ).
>
> The normal way to do this in Debian is submit a wishlist bug with a
> patch.
>
Well, from time to time i submit patch : it really demand of the kind of
people who are maintainer ( ranging from good maintainer to MIA ), with
a team you can have a ((good maintainer + MIA) / 2) ( yeah should be
MAX(good maintainer, MIA), but i don't think it is the reality ).
> Of course, if you're a co-maintainer of part of a "packaging team", then
> this is a little different.
>
> Personally, for my package, I welcome and encourage patches, but I want
> to be the one to decide if they get applied to the sources. That way, I
> know what's going on with the code, and have a chance to spot potential
> problems.
>
Well, ocaml related packaging only have 10 to 20 files.... Not a big
deal with code. Does this also means that for example if we decide to
switch to ocaml-3.07-1 you won't do it ? Ie : maintaining a central repo
allow one people to grep/sed all 3.07 -> 3.07-1 those reducing the load
for every one. And i don't think you will say, no this patch is not...
> > - it permits to hijack some package ( like the thing i will do next week
> > : hijacking numerix ).
>
> That's possible anyway.
>
> > And optionally :
> > What difficulties have you regarding svn ? ( at the beginning i think
> > you were a pro pkg-ocaml-maint )
>
> OK, this is a question I can answer, as a convert from svn.
>
> The main problem is that it's difficult to maintain local svn trees.
> Say I had my package in pkg-ocaml-maint, and was going to go offline for
> the weekend, taking my laptop with me with no Internet connection. I
> could either go the weekend without checking in any changes. Or I could
> create my own Subversion repos, check in the originals, check things in,
> and when I return, check in one big batch that loses all the history for
> what I did over the weekend -- plus have to manually merge and sync this
> all the time.
>
> With tla, I simply branch off the main repo to my laptop repo, and when
> I get back, tla star-merge back into the main repo. Change history from
> my laptop preserved.
>
> Basically, Subversion is better if you are frequently interested in
> finding out exactly what happened to a file when. Arch his better if you
> are frequently interested in merging in changes and working with others.
> Both can, of course, do both tasks; these are just the areas in which
> they excel.
>
Ok, i understand your point of view. I am just converted from CVS, maybe
in one year i will be a converted from SVN ( ;-) ).
> > No, i think it is a good idea to have a list of ocaml related package...
> > Just to know which ocaml related software are around....
>
> grep-available -sPackage -FPackage ocaml
>
;-)
Kind regard
Sylvain LE GALL
Reply to: