more debian (and other) packaging of plugins?

[Russ Brown]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> | "Martin Pool" <mbp at sourcefrog.net> writes:
> |
> |> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Martin Pool <mbp at sourcefrog.net>
> wrote:
> |>> "Debian Packages
> |>>
> |>> Bazaar releases are regularly packaged into sid/unstable. Backports for
> |>> stable are made available a bit later on backports.org."
> |> I feel we've been doing reasonably well at getting bzr and bzrtools
> |> releases into the Launchpad PPA fairly quickly, but we could take this
> |> a bit further:
> |>
> |>  * packaging more plugins (either individually or as a big bundle
> bzr-plugins?)
> |
> | This would imply that each time a plugin is updated we need to reupload
> | all plugins. Moreover we would need some way to sort bugreports among
> | the plugins there.
> |
> 
> If they were packaged individually, with a meta-package that installed
> them all,
> would you need to upload all of them each time? It seems like the meta
> can just
> depend on either *any* version or version >= XXX, which will be
> satisfied with a
> newer version.
> 
> | No real objections, rather thoughts.
> |
> |
> |>  * perhaps using this as a way to check for plugin breakage as part of
> |> the release process, particularly for plugins that are stable and not
> |> being very actively developed
> |
> | Indeed.
> |
> |>  * sharing more of this effort between Debian and Ubuntu, and maybe
> |> making it more consistent with Fedora and other systems
> |>
> |> Any ideas?
> |
> | How about granting more developers access to the bzr PPA? I think at
> | least the pkg-bazaar packaging group on alioth should have, but I don't
> | see any particular reason to not also allow all motus to upload there.
> |
> | Moreover I'd like to see the packaging branches for the pkg-bazaar group
> | packages shared with the PPA packages. They are currently hosted on
> | bzr.debian.org, and I could imagine that we can mirror them on launchpad.
> |
> 
> Everyone who is on the '~bzr' team has access to the PPA, I wouldn't
> really want
> to open it up more than that (and we have certainly discussed
> restricting it more).
> 

Would it make sense to have a separate PPA for plugins then, that all
plugin authors could have access to? I certainly don't like the idea of
each plugin having its own PPA.

> John
> =:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIUSNChXYlbEtYt2wRAuROAKCpK2yexKQ+4hnsP0RZ8v6/WPPZCgCgu1zn
xApyaBwrqYQHXSmHgWmt4Rk=
=rK3J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----