Re: Using cvs-buildpackage to manage debian packages
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 10:38:02 -0500, Michael Alan Dorman
<mdorman@debian.org> said:
> Daniel Ruoso <daniel@ruoso.com> writes:
>> I was thinking if it would be nice to manage the packaging of the
>> libraries if we use cvs-buildpackage to maintain the control files
>> such as changelog...
>>
>> that way we can dump the original sources into pkg-perl cvs every
>> time we want to package a new upstream version..
>>
>> what do you think?
> I have used cvs-buildpackage in the past---and, in fact, use it for
> some work-related stuff, where we use CVS to manage our sources and
> where, coincidentally, we are building perl modules. ;)
> That said, I would advocate using arch (well, tla), rather than CVS,
> in combination with tla-buildpackage.
I wrote cvs-buildpackage -- and yet I now use arch, with the
as yet unreleased arch-buildpackage. I would strongly advocate using
arch
> Arch's support for branches and merging is much more sophisticated
> than that of CVS, and tla-buildpackage has made managing new
> upstream source and NMUs much easier than any other method I have
> tried (it certainly *feels* like I've tried them all)---both of
> which I think would be a big benefit if we're looking at doing
> community-supported packages.
(I personally found arch-buildpackage less limiting than
tla_buildpackage, since there was no limitation on the number and
naming of the branches used in packaging -- but that restriction may
have been removed from tla_buildpackage)
manoj
--
The key to building a superstar is to keep their mouth shut. To
reveal an artist to the people can be to destroy him. It isn't to
anyone's advantage to see the truth. Bob Ezrin, rock music producer
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: