Hello, > For updates to existing packages when the repositories are open for it, the > backports timeline can be similar if users are motivated. Is the timeline similar ? Are the users motivated ? Do backports reach a broad audience ? Getdeb/Backports/Ubuntu/Debian/insert your preferred option here "Can be" much better "If" .
> You've said before that I misinterpret your statements when it sounds to me > like you say you unwilling to package things properly, but that's what I'm > hearing again. What is "Properly" for Debian, may not be "Properly" for Ubuntu, or the way around, What is "Properly" for Getdeb, may not be "Properly" for Ubuntu, or the way around. Getdeb packages are mixed between "Properly" for Debian, "Properly" for Ubuntu and "Properly" for GetDeb, if you are trying to say that I am unwilling to make every package "Ubuntu Properly", you are correct, and it is not a matter of will it is a matter of not having the required resources and skills to do it, the cost is, lower quality for some packages, a few packages just as "Properly" packaged as grabbing the source and compiling, however they were created by someone which understands how to properly compile linux software. >Not if you work separately. If you've created a proper package, why not get >it uploaded and backported? Again, this is a personal choice, I do believe the few team members which have the ability to create a proper package from scratch already do also upload it to some official source, Debian or Ubuntu. If you want to guarantee this on an automated fashion, we can arrange that, do you have some entry point for this ? I can add a line to our automated building system to upload the package to the backports building server. However you will get all the packages, because for reviewing, sorry, that is a tedious and time consuming task which depends on the specific requirements you are reviewing, that is not something I could do for the backports. > The -updates/-security repositories are enabled by default and -backports is > there to be easily enabled if someone wants them. GetDeb is an entirely > separate thing that people have to go look for. I don't understand why this > is so confusing. GetDeb is the only "thing" which provides latest versions and brand new software that people need for the "current" Ubuntu version, on a user friendly fashion, with screenshots, video links, user comments, etc, what is confusing is your continuously comparison between getdeb and a plain repository. If you do believe backports at their current state are sufficient, than, please promote it, make it appealing for the users and spread it. There is so many software to cover, and we are so few. >Automatix has lots of positive feedback too. It doesn't mean it's a good >thing for users to be using. Stop and consider for a minute that the reason Right, and had a lot of negative too, again, but let's not get out of the subject, the Automatix team already reacted with a clear statement of cooperation. Do you have any evidence to believe that we are harming any system in any way may other than for minor QA failures ? (We did corrupt the mime cache of a few systems, that was a serious issue) . >you get positive feedback is that you are packaging updates and such and NOT >putting them in the official repositories. It's a self fullfiling prophecy. Not again, are we talking about what getdeb does, or what about others do on a different way ? >I note that you are distributing gnucash 2.2.1 for Feisty: Possible causes: - We have packaged it before it was available on backports - We missed to verify that it was on backports, or for some odd reason we decided to publish it knowing that it was already available on backports, regardless of the reason, it was great for those more than 500 users that installed it from getdeb, if we did some duplicated work, bad luck for us, getdeb. > Why do you distribute software that is available from official repositories? Read above The -getdeb was changed to ~getdeb, because, as per one of our users suggestion (a long time ago) that would make our packages minor compared to the ubuntu official packages (for the same version). No one raised that problem regarding the backports packages, until now. I will look into this in the future. Thanks -- João Pinto IRC: Lamego @ irc.freenode.net Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GetDeb Project Manager - http://www.getdeb.net
-- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
