Re: Discussion about pkgsrc dependencies and default build options

[Nikita Ronja Gillmann <nikita%klang.is@localhost>]

On 5/11/22 10:39, Dr. Thomas Orgis wrote:
> Am Wed, 11 May 2022 00:53:08 +0000 (UTC)
> schrieb John Klos <john%ziaspace.com@localhost>:
>
> > For instance, there has been talk for years about the possibility of
> > moving from CVS to git. However, it would be silly for that move to happen
> > before we started including git in base, or at very least had a very much
> > paired down, minimal git-base in pkgsrc.
I think the idea with Mercurial was to rely on a Mercurial in pkgsrc,
that's the last I've heard about development setup with a potential
new version control, and if someone writes a minimal Mercurial to
be included in base that would be optional.

> On that note, moving to svn would be a smaller hurdle? Dependencies of
> subversion-base are small in comparison. I know that people said that
> svn doesn't differ enough to warrant a move, but for me cvs simply
> ceased to be relevant once svn was there, as it does what cvs does,
> just better (for me the branches-and-tags-as-copies is a feature, but I
> know that people feel differently, the practical difference should be
> small).
>
> Using cvs in 2022 is a funny retro experience, you can make it workable
> with some wrapper scripts, but the slow communication with the server
> (if not using some local layer with a different vcs) is excruciating.
> Switching to svn would give gain to rather small pain, as things
> basically work like before.
>
> Git is a move in base software and in development/usage model. Just
> saying, back to the original discussion …
>
>
> Alrighty then,
>
> Thomas