On 10/05/2009 12:06 PM, John Dong wrote:
> Mozilla Team dailies are in a PPA because they are experimental in
> nature; OpenOffice 3.1 has no reason to be unless the process of
> backporting it requires some insane procedure that makes them unsuitable
> for Backports' quality standards.
>
> The "red tape" to get it into Backports is solely demonstrating the
> ability to make the package in such a way that it doesn't unleash hell
> upon the users; the value of having it in backports instead of a PPA for
> the users is the peace of mind that comes with knowing that the Ubuntu
> team has deemed the package suitable for general adoption.
>
>
> Once the initial package is made, I don't imagine that backporting security
> fixes to it will constitute major work. However, the same could be said about
> our previous, say, Firefox backports but security fixes for those fell
> through the cracks as users became generally disinterested in the packages.
>
We also have a stable PPA that has a bot running it IIRC.
We dont backport Mozilla apps due to the depends and such.
Is packaging OO.o any different than any other app? It
shouldnt be but i havent had to build it yet.
--
Sincerely Yours,
John Vivirito
https://launchpad.net/~gnomefreak
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JohnVivirito
Linux User# 414246
"How can i get lost, if i have no where to go"
-- Metallica from Unforgiven III
--
Please backport OpenOffice.org 3 to Hardy
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/283137
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backports Testing Team, which is subscribed to Hardy Backports.
--
ubuntu-backports mailing list
ubuntu-backports@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
