Re: Huge list of broken Vcs-Svn entries in control files
Hi James,
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 07:48:06AM -0400, James McCoy wrote:
> > > See also <http://lintian.debian.org/tags/vcs-field-not-canonical.html>,
> > > so maintainers should be aware of the problem.
> >
> > IMHO this is the wrong attitude. While I tend to respect lintian issues
> > of severity info you can not at all expect maintainers to just seek long
> > standing bug free packages for such things and upload packages just
> > because of this.
>
> My reason for pointing out the lintian check was that there exists a
> mechanism to inform maintainers that their Vcs-* URLs aren't canonical.
OK.
> The description for the the tag states that the non-canonical URLs will
> still work due to redirections, but that it would be beneficial to
> update them.
What exactly is the benefit?
> Nothing about that implies that one needs to upload a new package just
> to fix this tag. It just means that if one happens to address that in
> the course of a normal upload, tools using their Vcs-* URLs will be
> slightly more performant and less likely to have transient failures.
In how far will it be more performant to use anonscm?
(Because the term "polemic" was involved here: I'm honestly interested
in these answers - may be I simply failed to understand the technical
background and if I would understand my willingness to change Vcs URLs
would probably increase.)
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: