Hi Simon,
Thanks for trying to move the experience forward on this.
On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 02:08:00PM -0500, Simon Quigley wrote:
> While this seems great at first, there's quite a few edge cases to consider.
> After talking with Julian and Robie on IRC[2], an approach of automatically
> adding a "Vcs-Clone" field via Launchpad was brought up. I would like to
> further this discussion here, and ask a few specific questions:
> - Is there an easy way for determining whether a given source package is
> imported via git-ubuntu?
The problem is not with having a method that is "easy", but one that is
"cheap" (and also, one that works using only the information you already
have available locally, i.e. apt indices).
The suggestion of autopopulating VCS fields to the source package on the
archive side seems like a good one to me, but it's not cheap to do that for
all packages as part of a publisher cycle either.
What would be the downside of just always telling users in the message where
the git-ubuntu repository *should* be? By this point the archive coverage
is quite good. The number of misses will be small. The language can
account for this, and could even be written in such a way that we encourage
a feedback loop to know which missing packages should be prioritized.
> - Would it be appropriate to consolidate those messages, only giving the
> "Vcs-Clone" field?
Strong -1 for defining a new field for this. If we are going to change the
Sources file at all, the existing "Vcs-Git" field already has the correct
semantics.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
