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@gismo:~$ cd test/ luca@gismo:~/test$ ls arnesi* ls: arnesi*: No such file or directory luca@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@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@gismo:~/test$ cd arnesi-upstream/ luca@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@gismo:~/test/arnesi-upstream$ cd ../arnesi luca@gismo:~/test/arnesi$ time darcs pull ../arnesi-upstream/ Pulling from "../arnesi-upstream"... withSignalsHandled: Interrupted! real 11m48.508s user 11m20.451s sys 0m1.624s luca@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@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