[Pkg-crosswire-devel] Revision control and packaging methods Re: about future packaging

[Daniel Glassey]

On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 3:55 AM, Jonathan Marsden <jmarsden at fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Дмитрий Ледков wrote:
>
>> 1) What revision control system are we going to use? git, bzr or svn?
>> ps I can help setup bzr or git structure to manage our packages. And
>> provide guide/tutorial on how to use them for packaging.

Thanks, that will be a massive help :)

> Whatever Daniel decides, since we are using his existing packages as a
> starting point :)  Ubuntu is heading towards bzr for stuff hosted at
> launchpad.net, but I'm less sure what Debian as a whole is doing in this
> regard, or if there is even an overall Debian tendency.

I'd say whatever the group decides. I'd be happy with any of the DVCS
git, hg, or bzr since all of them can be used and are used on alioth.
A very _very_ mild pref towards git because it's the one I'm most
familiar with, but I haven't used it with packaging. I'd rather not
use svn when there is an option of a DVCS.

So my votes are:
       bzr   +1
       git   +1.01
       hg   +1
       svn   -10
       other 0

Has anyone got strong preferences or any reason not to pick whichever
of bzr and git people here are most familiar with?

>> 2) CDBS
>>
>> Packages I've looked at (libsword-dev and gnomesword) both use CDBS is
>> it OK if we continue using CDBS for all packages we manage?
>
> I doubt it, since the current Debian and Ubuntu packages of sword use
> quilt!  The general rule is to use whatever patch system the current
> package is using.

quilt is the patch system. CDBS is the packaging scripting system.
I'd like to stay with CDBS and use whatever patch system works best
for the patches we have and the DVCS we use.

>> 3) Tarball inside tarball
>>
>> What was the point? there is no gain size wise, but upstream checksums
>> are lost. Can we stop doing this? (looking previous two packages).
>
> That's one for Daniel, I think??  Which specific source packages are you
> referring to here?

I originally changed to that because it worked with my workflow at the
time - drop test tarball in and rebuild. But I'm really not wedded to
it and just want whatever system everyone can use.

Thanks,
Daniel