On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:11:12PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed, 2014-11-12 at 15:38:59 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Gergely Nagy wrote: > > > I'd like to note that there are very good reasons for a debian-only, > > > overlay-style packaging repository too. This section should, in my > > > opinion, at least acknowledge that, and briefly mention it as an option. > > > I find it a bit sad that it was outright discouraged. > > > > Personally I wouldn't use anything other than debian-only repos, at > > least for those where I have a choice. I also actively avoid > > contributing to packages that don't use such repos. > > Exactly. In addition I also only tend to «git clone» native packages, > for anything else I just simply «apt-get source» and can be pretty sure > what I will get, because the alternatives are just annoying. > > As a maintainer and upstream, I also find crawling the packaging repos > for many of the RPM based distros, Gentoo and BSDs port collections for > example, actually way more pleasant and clear than many of the Debian > packaging repos with packaging bits mixed with upstream code TBH, because > they only have the build recipes and possibly patches, so I don't need > to know their tools or path layouts to be able to find the packaging > bits, because they are just obviously there, in front of you, alone. > > Not to mention the “unholy” practice of having to store autogenerated > stuff shipped only in release tarballs in a git repo! :) > > I also fantasize sometimes of a day where the whole distribution would > be stored on VCSs (per package) with a debian-only layout, so that I > could have a local copy for the whole archive, taking only a couple of > GiB at most, instead of the monstrosity of a complete exploded sources > archive (according to <http://sources.debian.net/stats/>, that's currently > 205 GiB, w/o including git history, which could easily double that > size); and don't tell me space is cheap, because that does not take > into account the downloading, nor the huge amount of wasted space if > you only want the packaging bits. > > Even though it might be more convenient for the maintainer, in general > I find the mixed up repos to be a disservice to the rest of the world.
I share your point of view so much. Having upstream history into a packaging repo is probably too much for most of the debian packages. Not to mention pristine-tar, Debian servers already contain .orig.tar.gz tarballs... Making buildd be able to work directly from VCS can be a plus also. No more sync problem between NMU, and/or contributor that forgot (or ignore) to push onto the repository. Where the VCS *is* the .debian.tar.gz. From this, it's easy to formalize helper tools. Ok, I know that is too much changes. But maybe there is some ideas here. Greetings, -- Maxime Chatelle (xakz) gpg: 5111 3F15 362E 13C6 CCDE 03BE BFBA B6E3 24AE 0C5B -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141112164619.ga10...@hermes.rxsoft.eu