Tollef Fog Heen <tfh...@err.no> writes: > ]] Gergely Nagy >> No, not really. I don't really care what tools one uses, as long as the >> result is reasonably easy *and* reliable to work with. Since VCS can be >> stale, and quite often does not include neither NMUs, nor backports, >> that fails the reliable requirement.
> It sounds like you are arguing that we should just ship the the > repository in the source package, then. No chance of it ever getting > out of date, trivial to find the merge points and missing patches > between two packages and fits much better with a VCS-driven workflow. Yes, many of us would like that, which is why it's been repeatedly discussed at Debconfs, but no one has come up with a good solution to the fact that this requires reviewing the entire VCS archive for DFSG-freeness and rewriting history if any non-free code is ever introduced in it. (Or, well, changing the requirements we have around source package freeness, but that seems less likely.) -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87boc92or6....@windlord.stanford.edu
