As I have been off some days (Oct 03 is a public holiday in germany) and could not read usenet in between, I have read a lot of valid comments in this thread. Let me add some points in this answer.
Am Mittwoch, 2. Oktober 2013 16:05:57 UTC+2 schrieb Cédric Krier: > > > My concern is that it is a personal package and not an official > openSUSE > > > (if I understand correctly). I would prefer (as I don't have any > > > knowledge in openSUSE package) that we link only packages managed by > the > > > official workflow of the distribution. > > > > > > The build service offers users the ability to build packages for > various > > platforms (Fedora, Red Hat, Cent OS, Ubuntu, Debian,..) from a single > > source. openSUSE as distribution bases completely on packages from the > > build service. > > We are not really concern, packages already exist for Fedora (and I > guess derivates), Ubuntu and Debian > Yes, but not everybody is using Ubuntu or Debian. > > > For sure we could try to push this into a standard repository (e.g. > > /repositories/server:/ERP, to be created). But in the end of the day, it > > needs a maintainer. > > Of course, to garantee that guidelines of the distrubution are followed. > No, it is not the repository that guarantees consistency, it is the software. Buildservice provides various checks [1] to make sure that quality and consistency are OK . openSUSE builds the distribution as well as distribution/security updates on the build service, there is no difference in handling. As I maintain packages in the official repos as well, I can confirm this :-) > > > or I can continue doing this. it > > would not be pushed into a standard repo without having a maintainer. In > my > > personal area, it gives me more flexibility, e.g. to add python repos > that > > are required for building. > > Yes that is my concern. If there is a maintainer behind the package than > we can encourage people to use it otherwise we just give unverifiable > advise. > I dont get this point. If I need a certain package which is not in the standard distribution, but e.g. in the project "devel:languages:python", I can easily add the repo, whereas in a project, where I am not the (main)maintainer, it is more difficult (but still works - we talk to each other). If you look at the currently linked distributions, some Tryton packages are maintained in the 'user repositiories', or in the 'universe-repo', which is by definition "Community maintained software, i.e. not officially supported software. " > More important for me is that there is a build for openSUSE, which makes > it > > easy to install Tryton from RPM, with the standard tools (like zypper). > > I think this goal doesn't reach the global Tryton goal. > This leads to various questions: 1) what is the global Tryton goal? 2) do you favour some distributions over others? 3) how much do you trust community input? IMHO we should try to provide as much as possible easy to use software compilations. I know some of the tryton community favor debian, other Ubuntu, and we should appreciate their time spend for the project. Maybe this is a topic for the TUB as well? Cheers Axel [1] http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_checks
