On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 12:21:42AM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote: > > I don't care much, not being particularly familiar with either arch or > svn. If you ask me, it's cvs, but that has become unfashionable of late. >
svn is cvs with steroids. It has the advantage of being quite smooth in upgrading from cvs for the mean developer. AFAIK arch is under-documented and quite difficult to use in respect with subversion. > > I still believe that building all kernel-image packages from the same > source will result in a monstrosity of a source package, slow down > development, and unnecessarily reduce flexibility. However, I'm all > for checking the Debian specific stuff (patches, configs, and debian/) > into one tree, so it becomes easier to review arch-specific patches > side by side, streamline .config files, unify the build structure and > so on. > Completely agree -- Francesco P. Lovergine
