On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 02:24:26PM +0100, Bastian Germann wrote: > 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. What about packages that don't use a Vcs today? There are far more of those today than that are using non-standard Vcs repositories. The number of packages that's using non-standards Vcs repositories is declining gradually anyway (0.4% of the archive today). What does dropping the Vcs-* headers achieve, besides making it even harder to work with these packages? As somebody who uses Vcs-Bzr for some of the Bzr packages, I'd be on board with mandating Git (because that gets us consistency in being able to work with every package) - but I don't see the point of dropping support for other Vcs-* headers without doing that. Cheers, Jelmer