Re: Vcs-* and Other Fields
Jonathan Yu <jonathan.i.yu@gmail.com> writes:
> For me it just seems odd to add fields to d/control that aren't in
> policy, though your explanation makes sense to me.
Debian policy is, ideally, descriptive instead of proscriptive. In other
words, it (ideally) changes only in response to acknowledged best
practices that are *already* being followed and supported by a
significant portion of the operating system and infrastructure.
Far from being odd, it's encouraging that a practice becomes consensual
before appearing in policy.
> I don't really think that each version control system should have its
> own field, like Vcs-Mtn, Vcs-Svn, Vcs-Git etc, because it's simply not
> very future proof in my opinion.
What's the alternative?
> On the other hand we've got situations where there are lots of Version
> Control systems that use HTTP and WebDAV (like SVN via http://) so
> it's hard to detect what type of repository something is simply given
> the URL.
Exactly. If there was a ‘VCS-URL’ field, there would still need to be an
additional ‘VCS-tool’ field to hold the information you want to
deprecate (the name of the tool that will be needed to interact with the
VCS data at the specified URL).
Then, since they all have different command-lines, there would need to
be an enumerated list of those that are supported. You thereby go from
one field to two, without any benefit I can see.
--
\ “I filled my humidifier with wax. Now my room is all shiny.” |
`\ —Steven Wright |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Reply to: