Re: [arch-general] Launchpad.net
On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 16:47 +0200, A. Klitzing wrote: > Well, you shouldn't bash against Launchpad because it's from Canonical > and they released Ubuntu. Most times people are against Ubuntu they > are > just envy of their fast success. ;-) Anyway... I don't want to talk > about THAT. Ubuntu is nice but has some problems like every other > distro... but Ubuntu != Launchpad. > Ok, besides I still not see the benefit, it's not up to me to decide whether arch should make use of LP or not. Just to not let this point being the way you say: Personally I do not have anything against Canoncial because of Ubuntu, I just don't like them because they're Canoncial. But that's another (long long) story ;)
Re: [arch-general] Launchpad.net
> I don't want to destroy your plan, so have in mind that I am negative > about Launchpad when you read this ;) I have no "plan". ;-) I don't want to destroy any workflow of Arch. It's just an additional help for people who uses launchpad for meta-bugtracking. > First of all: why? Do you think anyone of the Ubuntu guys cares more > if a bug is also marked as being valid on Arch? Well, you shouldn't bash against Launchpad because it's from Canonical and they released Ubuntu. Most times people are against Ubuntu they are just envy of their fast success. ;-) Anyway... I don't want to talk about THAT. Ubuntu is nice but has some problems like every other distro... but Ubuntu != Launchpad. No one should report bugs to launchpad instead to Arch's flyspray (if that will happen, I will forward it to flyspray). But you can link some bug-reports of other distros (Gentoo, Fedora, Debian, ...) to a flyspray-bug in Arch. It's nice to have those meta-bugtrackers because you can see the progress in other distros and look for fixes. Another example: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gentoo/+bug/203997 You can see that Distro XY needs to fix that security issue. (Idea: if you link Arch to that, it could send an eMail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]) > I mean (and that's imho part of the arch philosophy), the best thing > is to get bugs fixed upstream and not report them to "Ubuntu". You won't report it to Ubuntu... most times it's already reported to upstream (or will be forwarded to them) in launchpad and you can link this to Arch. > Second: Launchpad features may be nice (and even superior to > self-hosted stuff (eg. Trac)), but that only applies when you use > most (read all) parts of it. (Including bzr for example). Of course... but meta-tracking bugs is a nice feature. Even if you don't use anything other from LP. I don't want to persuade you to use LP. If you don't want to use it, you don't need it. ;-) But maybe you will like some preferences of LP you don't know. ;-) Regards, André Klitzing signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] Launchpad.net
On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 15:35 +0200, A. Klitzing wrote: > Hi there, > > I registered "Arch Linux" to launchpad.net [1]. > I like the idea of a corporate platform for linux distributions. I > don't want to replace existing infrastructure (flyspray, ...). But it > will help (me and some other, I think) to mark a bug to be presence in > Arch, too. I used a lot of bugtrackers and the bugtracker of > launchpad works very nice (even LP lacks flyspray-support at the > moment [4]). > Maybe someone wants to work with Arch and launchpad, too, like > forwarding bugs to Arch if needed. I'm open to add people to that team > [2] or give ownership to developers. > > Also I asked for Arch-Support on PPA [3]. But that will be a low > priority. I don't want to destroy your plan, so have in mind that I am negative about Launchpad when you read this ;) First of all: why? Do you think anyone of the Ubuntu guys cares more if a bug is also marked as being valid on Arch? I mean (and that's imho part of the arch philosophy), the best thing is to get bugs fixed upstream and not report them to "Ubuntu". Second: Launchpad features may be nice (and even superior to self-hosted stuff (eg. Trac)), but that only applies when you use most (read all) parts of it. (Including bzr for example). Last one: I bet PPA won't support building pacman-packages for the next 10+ years :) Is it a problem? Not really, isn't actually too hard to create a cross-package as Arch only supports two architectures anyway...
[arch-general] Launchpad.net
Hi there, I registered "Arch Linux" to launchpad.net [1]. I like the idea of a corporate platform for linux distributions. I don't want to replace existing infrastructure (flyspray, ...). But it will help (me and some other, I think) to mark a bug to be presence in Arch, too. I used a lot of bugtrackers and the bugtracker of launchpad works very nice (even LP lacks flyspray-support at the moment [4]). Maybe someone wants to work with Arch and launchpad, too, like forwarding bugs to Arch if needed. I'm open to add people to that team [2] or give ownership to developers. Also I asked for Arch-Support on PPA [3]. But that will be a low priority. Best regards, André Klitzing [1] https://launchpad.net/archlinux [2] https://launchpad.net/~archlinux [3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.cms.launchpad.user/3508 [4] https://bugs.launchpad.net/malone/+bug/28738 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
