Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I was thinking if it would be nice to manage the packaging of the > libraries if we use cvs-buildpackage to maintain the control files > such as changelog... > > that way we can dump the original sources into pkg-perl cvs every > time we want to package a new upstream version.. > > what do you think?
I have used cvs-buildpackage in the past---and, in fact, use it for some work-related stuff, where we use CVS to manage our sources and where, coincidentally, we are building perl modules. ;) That said, I would advocate using arch (well, tla), rather than CVS, in combination with tla-buildpackage. Arch's support for branches and merging is much more sophisticated than that of CVS, and tla-buildpackage has made managing new upstream source and NMUs much easier than any other method I have tried (it certainly *feels* like I've tried them all)---both of which I think would be a big benefit if we're looking at doing community-supported packages. Heck, if this sub-project were to decide to use arch, I would seriously consider putting all of the modules I maintain in this repository. Mike -- I was a superman, but looks are deceiving -- Stone Temple Pilots -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
