On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 12:58:23PM +0200, Christian Franke wrote: > I would like to contribute etckeeper. > > https://etckeeper.branchable.com/ > https://repology.org/project/etckeeper/versions > > etckeeper-1.18.17-1.hint: > category: Utils > requires: bash coreutils grep sed > sdesc: "Store /etc in git or mercurial" > ldesc: "Etckeeper is a tool to let /etc be stored in git or > mercurial. It hooks into Cygwin Setup to automatically commit changes > made to /etc during package upgrades. It tracks file metadata > (permissions, owner, group) that version control systems do not > normally support." > > Package for review: > wget -r -nH --cut-dirs=2 \ > https://chrfranke.de/cygwin/noarch/etckeeper/etckeeper-1.18.17-1.hint \ > https://chrfranke.de/cygwin/noarch/etckeeper/etckeeper-1.18.17-1-src.hint \ > https://chrfranke.de/cygwin/noarch/etckeeper/etckeeper-1.18.17-1-src.tar.xz > \ > https://chrfranke.de/cygwin/noarch/etckeeper/etckeeper-1.18.17-1.tar.xz \ > https://chrfranke.de/cygwin/noarch/etckeeper/etckeeper-1.18.17-1.sha256 > > Tested with git. Only a few tests were done with hg.
LGTM! I've not tested the actual function, but the packaging looks sound, and I trust etckeeper enough that if the packaging is sound I'm happy the rest will follow :) I do wonder if it's worth trying to submit your patches upstream; they seem like the sort of thing the upstream project might be interested in taking, and it minimises the amount of work you have to do as a maintainer. I'm also vaguely pondering whether it's worth adding git as a dependency. That's not strictly right, since etckeeper doesn't *need* git, but it's going to be the use case for 99.9% of users, and in the absence of Cygwin having a "recommends" style dependency, just adding git seems like it might be sensible. But I'm far from convinced there. Adam
