Dependencies in the PPA for Jaunty

Aaron Bentley aaron at
Mon Jun 15 20:32:25 BST 2009

Hash: SHA1

Maritza Mendez wrote:
>     > I understand what you are saying.  Requiring bzrtools to test against
>     > bzrRC is fine.  But we still need a mechanism to help people
>     decide when
>     > upgrading makes sense for them.  That's what I was really trying
>     to say.
>     Upgrading in what context?  If you're using the debs from the PPAs,
>     you'll always have a known-good combination.  Same if you're using the
>     Windows .exe installer.
> By "upgrading" I mean grabbing the latest stable release in source form
> to get the fixes I have identified as critical to my team even before
> they get to the debs.

Yes.  They are meant for people like you who want the latest releases,
without sacrificing stability or dealing with fiddly dependency management.

> So what you're really saying is I should wait for
> the debs.  I used to do that.  Then one time there was a noticeable
> delay between final and debs, and I realized that I really did not have
> to wait for debs.  That was probably a bad choice by me. 

Well, I can see how that might happen.  But please give the PPAs another
shot, and let us know if they're not working out for you.  In some
cases, the delay was caused *because* of the dependency management-- a
certain critical plugin being out of date with bzrlib, for example.

> Are you saying that the kind of bzr-versus-plugins compatibility I am
> seeking is guaranteed by the debs?  If so, great, thank you and I apologize!


> Based on one or two bad data points, I thought
> maybe the PPAs were not held to such a high standard.  If they are, then
> that is exactly what I should be using.

The PPA should have the same quality
as the source releases.  There are also beta and nightly PPAs that are
even fresher.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


More information about the bazaar mailing list