Dependencies in the PPA for Jaunty
v.ladeuil+lp at free.fr
Tue Jun 23 09:36:25 BST 2009
>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Cowie <andrew at operationaldynamics.com> writes:
Andrew> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 14:35 -0700, Maritza Mendez wrote:
>> I took Aaron's advice and went back to trusting the PPA's. I really
>> tried. It was less than a day before I found myself driven back into
>> the hard choices Joseph is describing.
Andrew> At the risk of being off-topic, there are some views that I'd like to
Andrew> 1) Plugin architectures appear to be an anti-pattern
Andrew> I know that the Bazaar hackers think their plugin system is brilliant.
Andrew> And it is. It's mature, well thought out, and capable.
Andrew> But the sort of confusion and pain being described on
Andrew> this thread is very common as soon as anyone starts
Andrew> trying to *package* plugins.
Then file a bug against the bazaar package whose aim is to
package bzr (the tool) with a set of plugin and ensure they are
Err wait, that package doesn't exist yet !
Anyway, your point is valid but aimed at the wrong target. I
think you should file the content of your mail as a bug. Since
the right target doesn't exist yet, then maybe use 'bzr (ubuntu)'
as a poor substitute.
But keep in mind that *my* installation (and certainly yours too)
is partly based on Ubuntu, partly based on PPA and partly handled
I'm fully aware that doing that I diverged from the supported set
of dependencies approved by my distribution.
In the same way, I'm fully aware of the consequences of having
$HOME/bin and $HOME/lib directories and I try to keep their
content as small as possible.
People that don't want to handle additional dependencies should
keep their $HOME/.bazaar/plugins directory as empty as possible
and pester PPA maintainers and <favorite distro>
maintainers. Keep in mind that many of them work in their spare
More information about the bazaar