On Sat, Mar 07, 2020 at 12:32:14PM +0000, Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 09:40:33PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: > > On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 10:28:03 +0000, Iain Lane wrote: > > > Since the discussions on the bug I've learned a > > > bit more about the upstream metadata spec > > > https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamMetadata > > > I think a slight gap there is that the "Repository:" field is just a > > > URL: it's not really enough information to tell if it's a git repository > > > we could add a remote for. To solve that I'm proposing a new > > > "Repository-Type" field, which would have values like "git, svn, hg, > > > ...". Opinions? > > > > In the perl team we just check if it's a git repo and continue from > > there: > > if ! GIT_ASKPASS=/bin/true git ls-remote "$REPOURL" >/dev/null 2>&1; then > > > > Having to add another field to thousands of files doesn't sound too > > appealing to me (especially as at least in our case there are hardly > > any non-git upstream repos involved). > +1 > > It would be nice to not fail hard if the upstream repository turns out > to not be a Git repository, but some other kind of vcs > (in which case you presumably just want to ignore it?). Thanks for the feedback! I think in this case I can actually simply try to fetch the repository and ignore it if it can't be fetched so this isn't a blocker for me. I'm not sure what other use-cases there are for this field though, and if that would work for them. It does feel a bit hard to use in general without knowing which VCS a URL points to - presumably that's why we have Vcs-$type in control files. Cheers, -- Iain Lane [ iain@orangesquash.org.uk ] Debian Developer [ laney@debian.org ] Ubuntu Developer [ laney@ubuntu.com ]
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature