On Monday, October 10, 2011 02:17:27 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 10, 2011, at 02:06 PM, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > >Instead of a new repository (extras or PPAs or whatever), why don't we use > >backports more to get new packages into the stable releases? Firefox and > >Chromium, though special, have at least opened the door more to stable > >updates that aren't just bug fixes. > > Further, if we had "official PPAs" we could perhaps do some automated > promotion from an official PPA into backports, so users wouldn't have to > add-apt-repository for dozens of packages. > > Many projects already have de-facto official PPAs, and these are great for > getting access to newer versions of packages in your current Ubuntu version, > or even packages which aren't available at all (e.g. pypy). Unfortunately, > there's no way to mark PPAs as "official" so users may not be able to rely > on the reputation of the PPA uploaders. > > A promotion from PPA would still require a rebuild to ensure the consistency > of the archive being promoted into. Maybe backports is the right archive > for these promotions, or maybe some other channel would be best, but it > would be nice if it were easy for users to enable it.
I don't know how a well maintained 'official' PPA would be less work than a update/backport approach for Ubuntu developers? Such PPAs would still have to not conflict if the actual distribtution and not introduce library updates the affected other packages. I think the things one would need to consider are about the same. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
