On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 02:24:26PM +0100, Bastian Germann wrote: > Hi! > > During the last weeks I had a look at the Vcs situation in Debian. Currently, > there are eight possible systems allowed and one might specify several of > them for > one package. No package makes use of several Vcs references and frankly I do > not > see why this was supported in the first place. > > For the allowed systems the situation in unstable is the following: > arch is used by 2 packages pointing to bad URLs: #1025510, 1025511. > bzr is used by ~50 packages, half of which point to bad URLs. > cvs is used by 3 packages, 2 of which point to bad URLs: #1031312, #1031313. > svn is used by ~130 packages, many of which point to bad URLs. > darcs, mtn, and hg are not used. > > We can see: The Vcs wars are over; with git there is a clear winner and in my > opinion, we should remove the possibility to use most of them for package > maintenance. It is one additional barrier to get into package maintenance and > we should remove the barriers that are not necessary.
People that use e.g. subversion could just remove the Vcs-svn field and pretend that they do not use any VCS. What does that gain us ? I have sympathy for maintainers that use the same VCS as usptream. I have sympathy for upstream of a VCS to use that VCS instead of GIT. ... Unfortunately some projects I work with did not convert their whole history to GIT and I find useful that Debian still provide subversion and mercurial to access older commits (and dead projects history). Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
