Re: any idea when apt 0.8.16 would land up in sid ?
2012/3/19 shirish शिरीष <shirishag75@gmail.com>:
> At that time the thing was that apt is held up because of dpkg and the
> multiarch thing. While multiarch is going to be probably a long
> process, the dpkg bit landed up today and is installed as seen above.
You are a bit impatient, right? ;)
I haven't had the time to check dpkg yet, but while it seems to have
changed a bit it seems to be at least stable in the most important
parts. I am e.g. a bit worried about the --get/set-selection change,
but we will see. It's at least not a very important regression.
We will ask shortly (hopefully not in the dpkg sense) the release team
for a slot, then we can be specific about that. Until then: soon
(might be in the dpkg sense).
You are interested in pdiff for Translation files, right?
Anything else? If the release team has no slot in the near
future we might have the time for a "backport" of some stuff in
the meantime (that is NOT a promise, just a try to make you
a bit more relaxed)
> Its interesting to see that the apt guys are using bzr. Is that
> somehow connected with Canonical ? Simply asking because I know that
> Canonical uses bazaar for most of its development and most of the
> things which happen here (within Debian) happen on either GIT, HG or
> SVN what I know so far. This is the first package I am seeing which is
> on bzr.
APT used to use CVS in its beginning, was then converted to GNU arch
and with its deprecation converted to bazaar (this is guess work, i wasn't
present at any of these conversations).
It's in so far connected to Canonical as many APT developers were or are
Canonical employees (now). That can be easily explained as Canonical
has a big interest in package management to work. Currently that is Michael,
who is also responsible for other more high-level tools like software-center.
(before you ask: no i am not on their payroll. I am an university student -
but Canonical invites me from time to time to join their developer summits
to discuss apt-related topics, so i might be biased, your choice)
I don't think that this has anything to do with the choice of bzr through,
as while Canonical has chosen to use it as her VCS and has also a few
developers in that area it's an official blessed GNU project - as was
GNU arch which is the sort-of predecessor. So i guess at some point it
was decided to go with 'GNU arch' and later to "upgrade" to its successor.
I haven't checked but i guess the decision for GNU arch was made
before git was released (maybe even also the bzr step, as it seems to be
a few months older than git).
Either way, i don't think the choice of version control system is all that
important, but this might be due to the fact that i never used git (seriously)
so far as all projects i work on are either in bzr, hg or svn…
(and i tend to use a small wrapper script abstracting from the actual vcs
as all i need is usually update/pull, diff, log and commit…)
Funfact:
While you are waiting for APT in unstable you can look at statistics
like this one: http://upsilon.cc/~zack/stuff/vcs-usage/
It's a bit unfair as this talks about the usage of vcs'es for packaging
which isn't necessarily also the vcs of upstream, but non the less…
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
Reply to: