Bazaar Explorer and PPA

[Alexander Belchenko]

Andrew SB пишет:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 9:38 AM, John Arbash Meinel
> <john at arbash-meinel.com> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Alexander Belchenko wrote:
>>> Russel Winder пишет:
>>>> On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 16:08 +0200, Alexander Belchenko wrote:
>>>> [ . . . ]
>>>>>> 2.  Oh no not another PPA :-((  Why can't we just have one PPA for all
>>>>>> the core Bazaar related released stuff.  I really don't want to have
>>>>>> 1000s of entries in my source.list.
>>>>> I don't understand you: I'm windows user and don't use PPA. I'm just
>>>>> know "they are exist". That's all I want to know.
>>>> Conversely, I have no interest in Windows ;-)
>>>>
>>>> The problem here for Ubuntu users is that aptitude/apt-get/synaptic
>>>> require knowledge of all the sources of installable packages.  Each and
>>>> every source has to be named and the signing key installed.  This means
>>>> the fewer the number of sources the better.  Splitting Bazaar components
>>>> into separate PPAs is the fastest way to having no-one use them.
>>>> Having all the Bazaar components in a single PPA is an administrative
>>>> nightmare.   So really this is a lose--lose situation.  The right
>>>> balance is to declare a core set of components (and qbzr and bzr-gtk
>>>> call squarely into that set for Ubuntu) and suffer the management hassle
>>>> for these components.
>>>>
>>>> The other argument I can use is that if Bazaar Explorer is on the Bazaar
>>>> PPA then QBzr really ought to be as well.
>>> Usually I'm doing source releases for QBzr, build windows installer for
>>> QBzr, and Gary build PPA package.
>>>
>>> Me and Gary are not part of the team who manage main bzr PPA, so every
>>> time Gary has to ask somebody to copy our PPA to bzr PPA. I don't see
>>> the way how to improve this situation.
>> I'm pretty sure Gary was added. And certainly he can ping someone to
>> update the bzr ppa.
>>
>> In this particular case, the ~bzr ppa is meant to hold the *stable*
>> series. Which is qbzr 0.14 IIRC. The appropriate place for 0.17 is the
>> ~bzr-beta ppa.
>>
>> The bigger question is why was bzr-explorer 0.10 copied to the *stable*
>> ppa. It should not be there. 0.8.3 is the current stable release.
> 
> This is certainly my fault. I had confusion over just what the bzr
> team considers a "stable" release. For instance, if qbz 0.17 and
> bzr-explorer are 0.10 are considered unstable, why do their respective
> homepages [1] [2] only offer download links for these unstable
> releases and not the stable ones? Also  bzr-explorer 0.8.3 was never
> packaged as a deb. I didn't package it until it hit 0.9, and at that
> point I was asked to provide it in ~bzr. I only learned the other day
> after waiting for a reply from
> Gary about when qbz 0.17 would enter the ~bzr PPA that it is
> considered unstable.

QBzr has no distinction between stable and unstable. We match bzr 2.0.x 
with QBzr 0.14.y because that was status quo at the moment of bzr 2.0 
release. I've told that we should not put newer QBzr in 2.0.1 and other 
releases. So, why they're considered "stable" I dunno. Any QBzr version 
has some bugs so one can call any version unstable. Ditto for bzr itself.

>> It looks like ~andrewsomething put bzr-explorer 0.10 into ~bzr, and he
>> should not have.
>>
>> Now, in ~ 1 month, we'll have 2.1.0 as the new stable, and everything
>> should be copied over.
>>
>> I'm sorry that we didn't notice this problem earlier. At this point,
>> debian repos don't really let us roll-back to 0.8.3 (which is pretty
>> crummy). I'm not sure how to get out of this mess without forcibly
>> upgrading everyone to the 2.1 series rather than the 2.0 series.
> 
> I've been uncertain about just how to handle this situation myself
> since I found out 0.17 is "unstable.". As bzr-explorer's linux install
> instructions [3] direct people to use the ~bzr-explorer-dev PPA
> perhaps I should remove bzr-explorer completely from the ~bzr PPA
> until a "stable" release has been made. If I understand this thread
> correctly, it sounds like the bzr-explorer package should never have
> been put in the ~bzr PPA in the first place.
> 
> -- Andrew Starr-Bochicchio
> 
> [1] http://wiki.bazaar.canonical.com/QBzr
> [2] http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/explorer/en/
> [3] http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/explorer/en/install-linux.html
> 
>