Hi Charles,
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Would the following patch be acceptable now ?
Getting a lot closer. Some questions:
[...]
> +++ b/policy.sgml
[...]
> @@ -3737,6 +3739,42 @@ Checksums-Sha256:
> details.
> </p>
> </sect1>
> +
> + <sect1 id="f-VCS-fields">
> + <heading>Version Control System (VCS) fields</heading>
> +
> + <p>
> + Debian source packages are increasingly developed using VCSs. The
> + purpose of the following fields is to indicate to the users where
> + they can access to the package's repository.
Maybe something like "... to indicate a publically accessible
repository where one can find packaging work in progress".
[...]
> + <tag><tt>Vcs-Browser</tt></tag>
> + <item>
> + <p>
> + HTTP URL of a web-browsable repository.
A common mistake is to put an HTTP URL for a raw git repository
instead of gitweb in this field. If possible, I would like the
wording to warn people not to do that. How about
HTTP URL of a web interface for browsing the repository.
?
[...]
> + The field name identifies the VCS. The field's value should
> + be sufficient to locate the repository and access it
> + anonymously on the main branch used for packaging. In the
> + case of Git, this is indicated with a <tt>-b</tt> argument,
> + like with the <tt>git clone</tt> command. More than one
> + different VCS may be specified for the same package.
Suppose my repository has "stable", "testing", "sid", and
"experimental" branches used to prepare uploads for s-p-u, t-p-u,
unstable, and experimental, respectively. Which is the main branch
used for packaging?
This is not meant as a hypothetical question. eglibc and the linux
kernel are both actively developed in many branches at once. If
there's no good obvious answer, some wording like "on a branch used
for packaging" sounds fine to me.
One other worry: I understand that you do not want to define the
syntax used for each version control system, but the wording "should
be sufficient to locate the repository" seems a little _too_ fuzzy.
Would something like "uses the version control system's conventional
syntax for describing repository locations and should be sufficient to
locate ..." work? I want to make sure it is clear that a gitweb or
wsvn URL is not appropriate here.
Except as noted above, looks good to me.
Hope that helps,
Jonathan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120628002510.GC3014@burratino
