Package: hg-buildpackage Version: 1.0.3 Severity: wishlist --- Please enter the report below this line. ---
Hi, I want to use Mercurial for my packages and I have a couple of suggestions about the hg-buildpackage. I find it not very convenient to keep the "bacula.upstream" directory around. Why not to do it the same way as git-buildpackage is doing? There is not so big difference between git and hg. Basically, it's enough to use hg branches. Because the bacula.upstream repository can be reconstructed from the "bacula" one, by looking at tags/branches. I think it's really important to only have one repository per package, not two. Also, I am missing a feature to build the package outside the hg directory (i.e. an equivalent of --git-export-dir). I'd like to help you with the package, but unfortunately, I don't know Haskell. But I know Python really well. It occured to me, why not to improve the git-buildpackage (that seems to be used a lot) to also work with hg? My provisional code attached. Only the very basic things were ported, it seems works and reuses most of the code from git-buildpackage. By comparing: http://hg.debian.org/hg/ http://git.debian.org/ it is clear that the momentum is on the git side, so I think it's better to only maintain one package (with two backends - git and hg). Also it's good for maintainers to only learn one way of doing things, be it hg or git. Cheers, Ondrej --- System information. --- Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux 2.6.21-1-686 Debian Release: lenny/sid 500 unstable ftp.cz.debian.org 500 unstable debian.certik.cz --- Package information. --- Depends (Version) | Installed ===========================-+-=========== dctrl-tools | 2.12 mercurial (>= 0.9.4) | 0.9.4-1 hg-load-dirs (>= 1.1.4) | 1.1.4 dpkg-dev | 1.14.7 devscripts | 2.10.9 libc6 (>= 2.6-1) | 2.6.1-6 libgmp3c2 | 2:4.2.2+dfsg-1
hg-buildpackage-ad73ec231740.tar.bz2
Description: BZip2 compressed data
