svn or arch

[Enrico Scholz]

walters at redhat.com (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:

- SRPM can be signed, CVS not
- SRPM are (usually) working, while the CVS checkout might be a completely
  broken development snapshot
- SRPM give you reproducibility, CVS not
- SRPM can be better accessed (e.g. in a browsable http/ftp listing);
  for CVS you need tags which are more difficultly to handle
- SRPM are buildable with system-tools (rpmbuild); for CVS you need lots
  of prerequisites.
(- a known CVS drawback: cvs checkin/checkout is not atomic)



Enrico