Christoph Haas wrote: > > Yes, of course. Besides some minor things I don't quite like about > Subversion (merging looks like black magic for me and getting out old > revisions of a file means typing the full URL for no reason) these are > the actual problems I encountered with svn-buildpackage: > > * svn-upgrade > > Upgrading from a new upstream tarball has never worked here. Matthijs > Mohlmann and I are maintaining the "pdns" (PowerDNS) package in a > Subversion repository. That software isn't trivial but it's also no > rocket science. Still svn-upgrade choked and left us alone like > "something didn't work half way - what do you want to do?" and we ended > up with a borked repository. Up to now we made a backup of the > repository beforehand and took our chances. I believe we merged in the > upstream changes manually. I didn't want to understand what svn-upgrade > is doing under the hood so I felt left alone there. > I guess I will need to watch out for that. I have only had one upstream upgrade so far since using svn-buildpackage, and I have not had this happen. Though, many of my packages are trivial to maintain.
> * svn-inject > > Injecting new packages through svn-inject fails here. I get errors about > the MKCOL method not being allowed on the remote WebDAV server. Perhaps > it's a problem that the Apache runs on Sarge while I'm developing on > Sid. > Not sure. I have shell access and use the svn+ssh method for my Subversion access. > * svn-buildpackage > > The main script for building a package works well here. Just that the > build-area doesn't seem to be tidied up automatically. A few failed > attempts of building a package and that directory grows here. But > building a package from the repository through pbuilder is very nice. > I have noticed this as well. > > Kudos to Eduard Bloch though. The scripts are pretty sophisticated. And > I already spent some time getting it working with pbuilder (see [1]). > Yes, it is just too bad that they did not use a respectable language, like Python. As it is, there are many features I would like to see added, but all I can do is file wishlist bugs, as I don't anything about Perl besides how to spell it. Your link on getting svn-buildpackage and pbuilder working was excellent. I used as a guide as well when I needed to integrate the two. > In the end I still favor Subversion over any other RCS. Although Simon > Richter made me try Git today. And I like to try out new things so I can > find better arguments against it. :) > I agree that (and pardon my paraphrasing), subversion is the worst form of revision control, except for all the others that have been tried. Personally, none of the others make sense. > >>The only problem I have encountered so far is that the Horde team uses >>Arch, which I simply cannot understand. I have spent quite a while >>reading through the documentation and messing with it, but Arch seems to >>me to not make any rational sense. > > > Neither to me. Bazaar (as made and used by the Ubuntu staff) seems to be > a "better arch". Still I couldn't be convinced to use it. > > Disclaimer: I'm not a Subversion guru. So I might as well just be > ignorant. > Ditto. -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature