Hi,
I'm wondering why Vcs-* fields in debian/control (Vcs-Browser and/or Vcs-<type>) are not recommended (or maybe even strongly recommended) ? (I mean here that I think having Vcs-* fields should be recommended for active packages) There is no lintian tag for missing Vcs-* fields (not even a low severity one, but I don't know if it's because of lack of interest or because of the policy). Maybe the fact that we still have the package' source tarballs for each released version is enough, but this loose the VCS history and ongoing work in case someone else wants to contribute too. I acknowledge that previously, packages might not have been developed using a VCS as said in the policy. But I think now most packages have a VCS where it is developed. Also, I see some orphaned packages in the QA group now actively maintained without VCS, which seems counterproductive if someone else wants to contribute too. In that case, this would be almost like a NMU I guess, but against an "non official maintainer" with manual merges (or lost changes). Or maybe orphaned package with QA upload are not supposed to be always collaboratively maintained ? (I'm new to these concepts, but to me the response to this should be "no"). What do you think about actively developed packages without Vcs-* fields ? ----- Note: I've checked if it was already discussed before on -devel or -policy but did not find anything relevant for this exact subject. If there is still something somewhere, I would be happy to read it :) -- Alexis Murzeau PGP: B7E6 0EBB 9293 7B06 BDBC 2787 E7BD 1904 F480 937F
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
