[cl-debian] yet another versioning change?

[Luca Capello]

Hello!

Sorry for the long mail, it contains a bit of output to explain my
problem.

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:01:11 +0200, Peter Van Eynde wrote:
> For the last week I've been trying to upgrade slime to the newest
> version and failed. slime-upstream works fine, but I cannot pull the
> changes into slime.

If you remember, I have a similar problem with my arnesi repositories:
every time I pull from arnesi-upstream into arnesi, the pull takes at
least 90min (with the darcs process going up to 99% of the CPU).  This
was probably due to some `darcs unrecord` I performed on arnesi (not
-upstream) and it's reproducible with a fresh copy:

=====
luca at gismo:~$ cd test/
luca at gismo:~/test$ ls arnesi*
ls: arnesi*: No such file or directory

luca at gismo:~/test$ time darcs get \
 http://cl-debian.alioth.debian.org/repository/lcapello/arnesi-upstream
Copying patch 285 of 285... done!
Applying patch 285 of 285... done.
Finished getting.

real    0m18.841s
user    0m0.948s
sys     0m0.040s

luca at gismo:~/test$ time darcs get \
 http://cl-debian.alioth.debian.org/repository/lcapello/arnesi
Copying patch 307 of 307... done!
Applying patch 307 of 307... done.
Finished getting.

real    1m44.539s
user    0m1.032s
sys     0m0.112s

luca at gismo:~/test$ cd arnesi-upstream/
luca at gismo:~/test/arnesi-upstream$ time darcs pull --all \
 http://common-lisp.net/project/bese/repos/arnesi_dev
Pulling from "http://common-lisp.net/project/bese/repos/arnesi_dev"...
Finished pulling and applying.

real    0m1.930s
user    0m0.220s
sys     0m0.004s

luca at gismo:~/test/arnesi-upstream$ cd ../arnesi
luca at gismo:~/test/arnesi$ time darcs pull ../arnesi-upstream/
Pulling from "../arnesi-upstream"...
withSignalsHandled: Interrupted!

real    11m48.508s
user    11m20.451s
sys     0m1.624s

luca at gismo:~/test/arnesi$
=====

> I've send emails to the darcs-users list and debian-devel, but
> no-one offered any clues as to how I can solve this.

I read them.  I asked once on #darcs at irc.freenode.net about my problem
with arnesi, but no one could solve it :-(

> I fear that basically darcs is not suited to debian package
> management because we often introduce 'conflicts' and 'doubleganger
> patches' (upstream includes a patch we've send). darcs seems to just
> break down under these conditions.

Well, actually I think for me darcs is OK because I work differently
AFAIU.  I don't record the debian specific patches as darcs patches,
but I apply them through dpatch instead (and `darcs record` the
dpatch files).  In this case, if a patch is applied upstream, it's
just a question of removing the corresponding dpatch file.

I know that this isn't probably the aim of an SCM, but it works quite
well for me, so I'm not inclined to change it.

> I've been redoing my work on sbcl for the last year with bzr and so
> far it did not blow up ;-S. Using tailor to convert from darcs to
> bzr does seem to take quite some time and I have not been able to
> check if you can do a merge between a <foo>-upstream and a <foo>
> branch after converting them with tailor. I fear not and that would
> mean we would have to restart all repositories. again.

IMHO this won't be a problem as far as the debian/changelog documents
all the changes.

> Opinions?

I'm for one SCM for all the CL-Debian packages, but we need to deal
with different upstream SCMs and in my case most of them uses darcs.
I don't really know what the Right Thing™ is :-(

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/cl-debian/attachments/20060807/63faef10/attachment.sig>