On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 06:43:06PM +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote: > Le ven. 3 févr. 2023 à 18:27, Jelmer Vernooij <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > Package: debian-policy > > Severity: wishlist > > > > Policy currently describes Vcs-* headers as something optional, but stops > > to > > endorse a particular Vcs. > > > > At this point, it seems uncontroversial to encourage use of Vcs-Git > > specifically here. Apart from technical arguments, it's the vcs that the > > majority of packages in the archive uses - and thus will have the better > > tooling, less of a learning curve for other contributors, etc. > > > > There are very few holdouts of other vcses in the archive. I count 62 > > (ignoring those with an alioth URL): > > > > * 26 on Svn > > * 3 on Cvs > > * 4 on Hg (2 are hg/hg-buildpackage) > > * 39 on bzr (half of these are actually bzr and related packages, which I > > maintain) > > > > Could this remark also address the fact that in most cases, > Vcs-Git == Vcs-Browser, > and thus Vcs-Browser is irrelevant ?
I do agree that it is silly to have to have to set nearly the same header for the 90% of packages that are on salsa. It does seem like an orthogonal issue and perhaps best kept separate - there are quite a few Vcs-Git headers set to something other than salsa.debian.org or github.com, which means that Vcs-Browser isn't necessarily always predictable even for Vcs-Git headers. Jelmer
