On Sat, 2004-12-18 at 00:29 +0100, Enrico Scholz wrote: > walters@xxxxxxxxxx (Colin Walters) writes: > > > One thing that should be clear is that by using a revision control > > system for RPM packaging, we've already conceptually broken > > compatibility because the SRPM is no longer the preferred form of > > modification, to use the GPL terminology. > > CVS can not replace SRPM: Note that I was talking about prerequisites for changing to a better revision control system, not how our current system is flawed. But I'll answer anyways: > - SRPM can be signed, CVS not Right; this is solved directly in pretty much all the distributed RCSes. > - SRPM are (usually) working, while the CVS checkout might be a completely > broken development snapshot You wouldn't check out CVS HEAD; you'd check out a branch tag corresponding to a particluar NVR. > - SRPM give you reproducibility, CVS not Not true if you can map NVR->CVS tag. > - SRPM can be better accessed (e.g. in a browsable http/ftp listing); ViewCVS solves this, I think. And e.g. Arch includes tools to browse the repository in the client. > for CVS you need tags which are more difficultly to handle Sure. > - SRPM are buildable with system-tools (rpmbuild); for CVS you need lots > of prerequisites. Not necessarily. We could just stick the necessary scripts in the common/ dir or whatever. Or just include the necessary tools in an updated rpmbuild. > (- a known CVS drawback: cvs checkin/checkout is not atomic) checkin is unrelated to this discussion, and checkout is solved because you check out a tag.
