Re: Vcs-* and Other Fields
On Wed, Jun 24 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
> This, or some similar scheme, would certainly be more future proof.
>
> One additional thing I'd like to raise is the need for additional
> metadata to make better use of the VCS repository:
>
> - upstream branch
> - debian branch
> - possibly additional branches e.g. upstream stable/development
> branches, and also debian stable/unstable/experimental branches
>
> One current annoyance with tools such as git-buildpackage is the
> need to manually specify options such as the upstream and debian
> branches unless you stick to the defaults, as well as if tools
> such as pristine-tar are being used. If this information was
> present in the control file, and I feel this is a natural place
> for such information, this would make package maintenance and
> building within a VCS rather less cumbersome, and could also
> allow for seamless integration with e.g. dpkg-buildpackage
> rather than requiring a separate tool for each VCS out there,
> at least for building.
>
> Maybe a set of Vcs*: tags would allow such uses?
>
> Vcs: git
> Vcs-Uri: git://git.debian.org/foo/bar
> Vcs-Debian: debian/unstable
> Vcs-Upstream: stable
> Vcs-Upstream-Stable: stable
> Vcs-Upstream-Unstable: master
This will delay inclusion into policy; since you will have to
get people to agree to this change, and wait until the new convention
is adopted (we have an installed mass of packages using the current
scheme.
Of course, if that is done, and the new convention wins over the
old one, there might be reason to have policy about it -- which one of
the two conventions to use would be specified by policy one the
transition is mostly complete.
But it seems to be that this might be getting close to over
engineering the issue.
manoj
--
Be cheerful while you are alive. Phathotep, 24th Century B.C.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: