[Utnubu-discuss] My utnubu packaging work and what needs review.
hertzog at debian.org
Thu Jan 5 08:06:37 UTC 2006
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> * I've my own gdebi bzr tree and mvo has one too. It makes no sense
> duplicate my work as "upstream" and "maintainer" into a svn tree,
> IMHO. Just to note that it's just a native package and with upstream i
> mean that i'm helping with the code and not only debian/ related
> * There's a "revision control system" mess with utnubu using svn, some
> ubuntu packages with baz and others using bzr.
My CollaborativeMaintenance proposal also goes with svn wince what is most
popular currently in Debian. But I'm totally open to make the system work
with several possible RCS behind the scene. (Everything is left to write,
so everything is possible :))
What is really important in the proposal, is to have a common "top-level
- where you can see the status of each package
- where you can grab the latest source package
> Closing, i don't think that we can stay just importing and maintaining
> stuff into svn as others projects do, but it isn't recommended that we
> move to bzr. I think we need a better documented procedure for what
> should be used and when. After all there are many guys wanting to put
> over all this frontends (REVU, HCT, ...), to help newcomers. What do
> you think?
I think that we definitely need a way to document in each source package
where and how the package is maintained. I suggested that already once in
debian-devel in a recent thread:
It's probably time to get something done in that area as well.
Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
More information about the Utnubu-discuss