On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:39:49 -0700 Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> Also notice that some of our services (web pages, documentation > >> project) use CVS and will do so for a long time. Having a CVS server > >> available to switch to if a security issue in the current standard CVS > >> server is found is something that would be useful to prevent downtime > >> of those services if the debian admins have to switch them off. > > > So instead of preparing the package, I suggest investing the time to > > migrate projects from CVS to SVN or bazaar instead. > > We still package RCS, and for good reason. > > *If* it's an improved version of CVS, I think it's still a good idea to > package it. A lot of us still use CVS for various reasons, ranging from > familiarity with CVS on the part of people who don't like change, use of > CVS revision numbers as a cheap versioning system with simple repositories > that don't need good branching and tagging, use of CVS repositories in a > shared file system like AFS (which Subversion does not handle well), > interacting with other open source projects that use CVS, or just out of > pure inertia. > > I don't think "it's not a good revision control system" is a good reason > to refuse the package, for exactly the same reason that Debian still > packages a telnet client even though everyone really should be using SSH. > Switching to Subversion requires more than individual action on the part > of one person, and therefore isn't always possible even if it's a good > idea. There is a really good reason to have telnet *client* on board, and that is accessing IMAP / SMTP etc. servers for testing purposes. Bye Racke -- Debian maintainer of Courier, Pure-FTPd, Interchange, Sympa LinuXia Systems => http://www.linuxia.de/ Expert Interchange Consulting and System Administration