On Tue, 15 May 2007, Aredridel wrote:
>
> > have 'packages/%{name}' containt (a) the spec file, (b) a 'files' subdir,
> > that
> > contains the traditional 'SOURCES' content and (c) any other files
> > containing
> > metadata. Off the top of my head -- the 'tag->revision' file we've
> > discussed
> > wrt to svn migration. And in the future -- any other metadata that might
> > prove usefull (with the ability to just add a file with some interesting
> > info
> > regarding a package, the possibilities are quite big; sooner or later
> > someone's bound to use it for builder/ftp/bugzilla/somethingelse
> > integration).
> >
> This or flat makes the most sense to me.
>
> If we're reorganizing on this scale, though, any reason not to move to
> SVN in the process?
Yes, SVN sucks a lot more than CVS.
Where CVS only lacks 'mv' command, SVN is broken by design wrt tags and
branches.
Let's leave that issue for later and do one thing at a time.
Janek
--
Jan Rekorajski | ALL SUSPECTS ARE GUILTY. PERIOD!
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl | OTHERWISE THEY WOULDN'T BE SUSPECTS, WOULD THEY?
BOFH, MANIAC | -- TROOPS by Kevin Rubio
_______________________________________________
pld-devel-en mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
