Hi,
Le 20/12/2012 13:00, ubuntu-devel-requ...@lists.ubuntu.com a écrit :
> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:16:49 -0500 From: Barry Warsaw
> To: ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: Re: Styles
> of Packaging (was: Deprecating the wiki-based Packaging Guide)
> Message-ID: <20121
On Dec 18, 2012, at 06:05 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
>UDD poses a different set of problems. I'm not sure how relevant it is to
>the upstream developer who just wants to package their software; at the very
>least, I think the developer docs should explicitly deal with the
>possibility that the ups
Steve Langasek wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 09:19:31PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>> >On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 02:08:04AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>> >> 1. While there are sponsors that prefer branches over
>debdiffs/source
>> >> packages uploaded somewher
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 09:19:31PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 02:08:04AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >> 1. While there are sponsors that prefer branches over debdiffs/source
> >> packages uploaded somewhere, I don't know of any that will
Steve Langasek wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 02:08:04AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> 1. While there are sponsors that prefer branches over
>debdiffs/source
>> packages uploaded somewhere, I don't know of any that will only
>sponsor
>> branches. The reverse is not true. There are develope
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 02:08:04AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 1. While there are sponsors that prefer branches over debdiffs/source
> packages uploaded somewhere, I don't know of any that will only sponsor
> branches. The reverse is not true. There are developers that don't do
> UDD sponsor
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 03:16:13PM +0900, Emmet Hikory wrote:
> While it may appear that way at first glance, this is very much an
> intentional consequence of policy-based packaging, which Ubuntu inherits
> from Debian. By having packaging judged against policy, rather than
> against some ar
On Dec 18, 2012, at 02:08 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>2. For developers that have a significant interest in a specific package, we
>generally recommend that they submit that package to Debian (although it
>might be accepted to Ubuntu first). Debian doesn't use Ubuntu UDD (in fact
>the acronym UD
On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 03:16:13 PM Emmet Hikory wrote:
> There is definitely a set of tools that are currently the most popular
> in the Debian archive, and these integrate well with a set of tools being
> developed under the "Ubuntu Distributed Development" moniker, which
> combination
Mike Carifio wrote:
> On 12/17/2012 08:11 PM, Emmet Hikory wrote:
> > packaging guide, I think there is value in being clear that folk who wish to
> > package have a plethora of options available: by all means, let's advocate
> > the
> > latest labour-saving mechanisms, but at the same time, I thi
10 matches
Mail list logo
