Hi, On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > For me this sentence is the essence of your mail: That you dislike > Joey's idea since it includes the VCS in the source package itself and > would prefer that we worked on creating a solution on top of wig&pen > instead. > > Do I understand that correctly?
No. I don't dislike it at all, I do like distributed VCS and the workflow and I believe that when upstream is using a DVCS, the $vcs.tar.gz is a really nice approach. However I'm also convinced that: - a source package should be unpackable without a VCS. This means that somehow it should contain a checkout that can be extracted with basic tools. [1] - it will take several years until we can standardize on VCS-based source package whereas the switch to wig&pen can be quick. In the mean time, a nice intermediary solution is to generate the wig&pen source package from the VCS. [1] to solve this for the git case I wonder if we can take files from the checkout and copy them (temporarily) in the .git/objects/ directory so that we don't duplicate files and get other packs based on those pre-existing objects ? > > I plan to write code in that direction: > > - clean up dpkg-source and move code in a Dpkg::Source API > > We should definetly get started doing this since it will be benefical > for any proposal. Yes. > > - add the API required for wig&pen > > - make dpkg-source be able to generate wig&pen source package > > - then add some scripts that use the wig&pen API to generate source > > packages from a VCS directory > > The other steps will probably require us getting some common agreement > on the direction we want to go. Indeed. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
