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
ba...@ubuntu.com To: ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: Re: Styles
of Packaging (was: Deprecating the wiki-based Packaging Guide)
Message-ID:
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
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
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
Steve Langasek steve.langa...@ubuntu.com 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.
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 09:19:31PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Steve Langasek steve.langa...@ubuntu.com 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
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 may
