Dependencies in the PPA for Jaunty

[Joseph Wakeling]

Aaron Bentley wrote:
> 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.

Well, the motivation for my original post is that this is not quite so...

Ubuntu distros contain a number of bzr plugins that are not in the PPA.
 In my case that plugin was bzr-rebase, which is recommended (but not
required) by bzr-svn.  Upgrading to the latest bzr means upgrading to
the latest bzr-svn, which requires a newer bzr-rebase.

So, the _strict_ dependencies are met -- there's nothing internally
contradictory between the PPA packages -- but they do clash with other
bzr-related packages in the distro itself.

The only general solution I can see for this is to mandate that all
bzr-related packages in the distro must also be maintained in the PPA,
which I guess is tricky since the Ubuntu packaging team, the plugin
developers and the core bzr development team would all have to
coordinate around this.  (After all, you have no control over what
whacky plugins the Ubuntu devs decide to include in the distro.)  But it
does make sense to me to want to define a wider set of core plugins
which will always be packaged in the PPA in versions compatible with the
latest bzr.

If it's not desirable to have so many plugins in the main PPA then
perhaps there could be a 'use at own risk' bzr-plugins PPA which plugin
developers could upload to independent of the main bzr team ... ?