Hi Sebastien (2011.10.10_18:08:16_+0200) > - there are lot of people out there who writer softwares and have no > interest to learn enough about Ubuntu to become a MOTU, they just want > to reach users, they should be welcome to join as well and in a way > which is not to difficult for them
I'm still sitting on the fence about ARB in general. I think lowering the barrier to entry for new apps is probably a good idea. It does come with downsides: * We need to divert manpower to packaging these apps. On the other hand, that's volunteer time, and volunteers can work on whatever they want to. * Every package needs to be explicitly uploaded to every release. I imagine that it means that we'll start every release with a relatively empty ARB store, and have a rush to get new apps in. Some will then spend a month or two stabilising. Ubuntu's 6 month release cycle may be too short for this to be an efficient process. * No obvious approaches to handling security issues or bug reports yet. I got a single report for my ARB app, by a user who found the source and hunted me down. (And I haven't dealt with it yet, eep) * It doesn't deal very well with libraries that aren't in Ubuntu. (And with the vague proposal of having a tiny Ubuntu core, main, without universe, this becomes a much larger problem). They need to be bundled with every app. This poses security problems, even if it does make the app author's lives easier. > - you were recently complaining as well about the number of packages > that see one upload and stop being maintained that we have to fix then, > do we want those in the main archive because they attract people or > would they be better suited in extras? Yes, this would help with that. I seem to remember an earlier proposal, where, if an app was still popular after a release or two, it would be strongly encouraged to be included in Universe / Debian. > - locking upstream softwares to our release cycle just don't fit, it's a > best un-natural and create extra work, it often means that users get > outdated softwares or versions that upstreams want to replace That is another reasonable advantage. > One other way would be perhaps to stop freezing universe at release and > to let softwares elvolve in a least strict way... I'm sure there'd be people who'd appreciate that (it sounds rather ports-ish), but I'm already concerned about the stability of Universe as it is (MOTU is rather understaffed right now). Yes, I also got involved in Ubuntu because I wanted to get a (particularly minor) app, and all its dependencies in. I had also been a Debian user for a decade or so, and had always intended to get more involved in the development side of the distributions, so I might have been more naturally drawn in than others. But I'm pretty sure that if ARB had been available then, I would have used it, rather than sticking my nose into #ubuntu-motu and asking where I could help out. SR -- Stefano Rivera http://tumbleweed.org.za/ H: +27 21 465 6908 C: +27 72 419 8559 UCT: x3127 -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel