[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: dh-r changes (Was: A common group on salsa.debian.org for R packages ?)

On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 11:38:41AM +0100, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> > Do you hold the bet that also salsa will not stay for ever?  So we
> > really *need* to change the mind of the admins and I feel in a user
> > position who has some feature request which is shared by lots of other
> > users and should be fullfilled by the admins.
> Sure, I agree with you in principle.
> However, from a technical point of view, there is not only the problem of the
> hostname, but also of the access path of the repositories on that host. And
> even though the AliothRewriter thing provides a partial solution to the
> problem, it is not enough, because URLs such as
> https//anonscm.d.o/r-pkg-team/$pkg do not currently work.

I'm aware of this.  But we should make sure that it will work.  Since I
wanted to upload a package with working Vcs fields I even used salsa.d.o
in the freshly team-hijacked r-cran-xts (should have hit the mirror
while writing) in full contrast of what I wrote above.  However, my
point is that we should try to implement "the right approach(tm)" in dh-r
and not the "its working for now until salsa.d.o will be replaced by
something else" approach.
> > I did so on debian-devel and what I wanted to express here is that I do
> > not consider it a good idea if we would now start using salsa in Vcs
> > fields only to learn later that anonscm will be fine (which I'm
> > positively expecting).  As I said previously:  anonscm was inventend to
> > stop the need to change Vcs URLs every second release (and it was really
> > that much and will never stop if we now start using salsa).
> I am ok with keeping for some time the old URLs with anonscm.d.o for existing
> packages, since the AliothRewriter makes them work. Once a final decision is
> made about the future of anonscm.d.o, we can update them accordingly.

> However note that we have a difficulty for new packages. Suppose that you
> introduce a new r-cran-foo package, what URL are you going to use?

I just did so and as I said I used salsa.  But for single packages that
can be manually changed later.  I'm just not happy about ironing out
salsa.d.o into the code we are using.

> The only one
> that will be functional will be on salsa.d.o. Of course you can introduce a
> fake rule in the AliothRewriter, pretending there was previously a repository
> for that package on Alioth, but this is rather awkward, and I am not sure this
> will be accepted.

Since its really awkward I did not do the latter.
> > What we also need to clarify is the Maintainer field of r-pkg-team
> > maintained packages.  I'm about to team hijack r-cran-xts[1] and for
> > the moment I used
> > 
> >    Maintainer: Debian Science Team <debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>
> > 
> > but we should use an own list - and one that is promising to persist the
> > alioth shutdown.
> I agree with you, we should use a separate list. There are two possibilities:
> an official list (like debian-r@lists.debian.org), or a team email alias on
> tracker.d.o (not yet implemented, but Raphaël Hertzog said on -devel@ that he
> is working on that feature).

In any case it makes sense to register debian-r@lists.debian.org since
we need a proper discussion list for discussions like we are actually
doing here.  Any volunteer for registering such a list?

Kind regards



Reply to: