On Jan 09, 2014, at 08:34 AM, Didier Roche wrote: >So, the idea that we enforced from this process are quite simple:
>source package name == project name. So, if you have "foo" source package in >Ubuntu where we are upstream for, you know that you can confidently bzr >branch lp:foo and that's what is in the latest development version of ubuntu. >inline packaging: You know and are sure that the packaging is . We also >sanitize and try to standardize the packaging to have the effect of no >surprise. You know the package is going to use dh9, debian/rules will be >structured that way, we are use --fail-missing to avoid new files not being >shipped without noticing… I think this is fine policy, as long as it's documented and easily discoverable. But also note that this won't eliminate *some* confusion about branch locations because you're also going to have the imported source branches too, e.g. ubuntu:foo (a.k.a. lp:ubuntu/trusty/foo). Modulo importer delays and failures, lp:foo and ubuntu:foo *should* be identical content-wise, even though they won't have a common ancestor and won't support merges between them. -Barry -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone Post to : ubuntu-phone@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp