Re: Perl4caml packaged
On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 10:41:18AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 01:26:06AM +0100, sylvain.le-gall@polytechnique.org wrote:
> > - 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 ).
>
> Debian has already instruments for coping with such issues: the BTS, the
> pool and so on. NMUs have always worked perfectly without CVS/SVN/...
>
> The real plus given by versioning systems is for people working actively
> together on packages, with the best possible example in collectively
> maintained packages. For sporadic help, just use apt-get source + patch
> + NMU + BTS, is also more standard and all DDs knows how to use it. You
> can't say the same for SVN.
>
> > But i don't want to run a flameware, you can do what you want...
>
> Don't misunderstand my point of view: I like SVN and I've put some of my
> packages on it for collective maintainance. Simply I don't think that
> all ocaml related packaged should be on SVN.
>
> > Which are the packages that are in pkg-ocaml-maint but you don't
> > maintain here anymore ? ( just to remove them )
>
> Well none of them. In the past they used to be camlimages and camlidl,
> but afterwards I realized that I had no longer time for maintaining
> those packages by myself and I decided to put both of them under
> collective maintainance. So they are now in the appropriate place.
>
> > And optionally :
> > What difficulties have you regarding svn ? ( at the beginning i think
> > you were a pro pkg-ocaml-maint )
>
> None. See the point above about misunderstanding :)
>
> > > Why? Users have "apt-get source" and this is enough IMO.
> > 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....
>
> Yes, this is reasonable. If you like we can add empty entries on SVN
> stating that this or that package is not maintained on SVN but is
> available via apt-get source and bla bla bla ...
Yes, that would be nice. Please do it, just in order to avoid duplicate
work or confusion. See how i did it for John's packages.
Maybe some standardized file with a email address in a greppable place
would be nice too, if we go on and introduce some batched
auto-rebuilding stuff in the future.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: