On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 14:47, "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote: >>> As a consequence, I would always request that whatever VCS Python >>> uses: the version that is in the current Debian's "stable" distribution >>> must be sufficient to use the VCS, and must in particular be sufficient >>> on the server side. >>> >> >> Even if someone like me or Barry volunteers to maintain the >> installation of the DVCS software? I would be willing to do this >> if/when the replacement for svn is chosen. > > Now we need to separate between server side and client side; for > each side, there should be a minimum required version (which might > be different). > > If Debian stable doesn't include the minimum required client version, > I will be opposed to switching to the DVCS. >
OK. > If it doesn't include the minimum required server version, I could > live with somebody maintaining a manual installation (which then > hopefully can be replaced with an official package on the next upgrade). > That's what I am talking about. >> This is why depending wholly on Debian for everything can be annoying. >> I understand the policy and support it overall, but in the case of >> something like a DVCS that doesn't have ridiculous dependencies like >> svn and someone explicitly taking the lead on the specific >> installation it would seem like an exception could potentially be >> made. > > It's always possible to make exceptions. It's not just about the VCS; > there have been requests to replace Apache, NTP, Zope, Postgres, > MoinMoin, and a few other packages. There have been many problems > on upgrade for the cases where we gave in: shared libraries were > missing after the upgrade (for Zope), the software wasn't available > anymore after the upgrade (in case of manually-install Python pacakges), > and so on. Very few people have actually helped in fixing these > problems (applause to AMK for being very helpful with the most recent > incidents). > Right, which is why I wouldn't want to do this unless the installation was owned by someone who was definitely going to be around for a LONG time. > I'd rather have the users annoyed than finding out that the custom > setup opened an entrance for hackers. > Right. Whomever stepped forward to maintain a custom install would need to really stay on top of things. -Brett _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
