On Dec 18, 2012, at 06:05 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: >UDD poses a different set of problems. I'm not sure how relevant it is to >the upstream developer who just wants to package their software; at the very >least, I think the developer docs should explicitly deal with the >possibility that the upstream has already made a different VCS choice that's >not bzr.
The packaging guide has a bit of a schizophrenic heritage, and it's not quite sure what audience it's trying to reach. Is it upstream developers who just want to package their software? Is it drive-by Ubuntu contributors who want to gain some experience fixing a bug or scratching their own itch? Is it the experienced developer who whats a reference to preferred tools? Certainly, the original UDD guide (from which much of the current packaging text was lifted) was written for experienced developers wanting to understand how to use UDD to maintain packages for Ubuntu. >And where Ubuntu development is concerned, I regret that I have to >agree with Scott that the lack of reliability for the existing UDD branches >is a problem, and one that doesn't seem to be getting better over time. So >while I personally favor the UDD workflow (and fervently disagree with >Scott's claim that it's a "more complex" toolset), I think we do need to >reconsider if it's actually beneficial to steer developers down this path. >Whether or not there's a consensus that we should be using UDD, it's no use >to new developers if it doesn't actually work. I think it's only going to get better if some of us enthusiasts step up to help start fixing things. I'm not entirely sure where to start, but that a topic for the udd mailing list, not this one. -Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
