Re: Vcs-* and Other Fields
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Jonathan Yu wrote:
> 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. 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.
I don't agree with changing the current practice. I've heard various
concerns but they are not worth breaking established practice.
As far as branches are concerned, the default branch should point to
the debian packaging branch and that's it. Then if you have the need
to encode more about how the repo is used, it should be somewhere in a
supplementary file in debian/source/. And that's what I plan to do when I
will work on integrating more closely VCS support in dpkg-buildpackage.
Concerning supplementary VCS, it's really trivial to add a new field in
dpkg so the "future-proof" concern is of little value (as long as dpkg is
maintained).
> It looks like the intent of having several fields for different Vcs
> mechanisms is that you can put several systems per package. So if you
> maintain your package in Svn and Git, you could have Vcs-Svn and
> Vcs-Git repositories for that.
I don't think that was the intent at all.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Contribuez à Debian et gagnez un cahier de l'admin Debian Lenny :
http://www.ouaza.com/wp/2009/03/02/contribuer-a-debian-gagner-un-livre/
Reply to: