Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Sat, Mar 28 2009, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > >> Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> writes: >> >>> A special rule in debian/rules to duplicate apt-get source for >>> people who are skeptical of thea rchive (and have an ill defined >>> attack vector thay are being paranoid about) -- or to provide >>> functionality that apt-get source is not a duplicate for? >> >> Well, for complicated cases (like ffmpeg, where we have to fight with >> svn:externals, external svn servers etc) it is very helpful to have such >> a rule. Espc. if some user objects with some of the modifications and >> needs to apply changes to it in order to get a slightly modified >> package. > > If you are talking about cases where there is no upstream > tarball, and just SVN (or some other VCS), and these cannot be handled > by uscan, then I agree, it would be nice to standardize the calling > interface.
I planned to add support for svn in version 4 watch files (it would be a matter of svn info svn://domain.tld/path/to/repo and some data massaging). But well, now that everyone is talking about it why not just tell what is missing so that it can be addressed in version 4 watch files? > My slight preference is a script with a well known name, since > that script can then be extracted and used by DEHS/PTS like systems, > without requireing that the whole source be unpoacked and > ./debian/rules be runnable (I have sanity checks in my debian/rules) > What you want is #458789, which should be tagged wontfix because of all its implications (extra needed packages, security risk, etc). Cheers, Raphael Geissert -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
