On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 10:07 -0400, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> On Friday, June 03, 2011 9:51:00 AM Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > Just to pick one example, as soon as you want to work on a package with an
> > out of date branch, you need to move from the UDD toolset.
>
> Or quilt. Ugh. If it comes down
On 4 June 2011 01:28, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> On Jun 03, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
>>
>> >From what I understand, there are people doing things all sorts of ways with
>>>quilt, and I really don't want to have to learn all
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jun 03, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
>
> >From what I understand, there are people doing things all sorts of ways with
>>quilt, and I really don't want to have to learn all the ways people are using
>>quilt with bzr and try to
On Jun 03, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
>From what I understand, there are people doing things all sorts of ways with
>quilt, and I really don't want to have to learn all the ways people are using
>quilt with bzr and try to figure out *which* way any particular package is
>using t
On Jun 03, 2011, at 09:51 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>If you look at http://people.canonical.com/~dholbach/packaging-guide you'll
>find no mention of the 'normal' tools and processes that I (and I believe
>most) Ubuntu developers use. This is not really an Ubuntu Packa
On Friday, June 03, 2011 9:51:00 AM Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Just to pick one example, as soon as you want to work on a package with an
> out of date branch, you need to move from the UDD toolset.
Or quilt. Ugh. If it comes down to quilt, there is no way I'm using UDD until:
- there is a *consist
I just took my first look at the so called Ubuntu Packaging Guide and it's
clear that a lot of work has gone into developing a useful guide for new
contributors. It does concern me that the name "Ubuntu Packaging Guide" is
really misleading.
If you look at http://peopl
