Updating the beta ppa.

[John Arbash Meinel]

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

Gary van der Merwe wrote:
> Hi all.
> 
> The beta ppa was looking sorrily out of date, so I dived in, and had a
> go updating it.
> 
> I've updated the following packages:
> bzr
> bzrtools
> 
> Notes:
> * There were no package branches for lucid, so I created them.
> 
> * The package branches don't allow for a combination of stable and beta.
> 
> * The package branches didnot have recent changes in them. E.g. the
> section had been changed from 'Devel' to 'Vcs' but this was not in the
> branch. I've update this, but I'm also missing changelog entries (which
> I guess is not to serious for a ppa.)
> 
> I hope that I've got this all right (there is no review for ppa's.)
> Please let me know.
> 
> 
> Gary

I believe Johnf had also done some work on improving the build step (to
use autoppa to manage building for many distributions concurrently). He
mentioned that he did not get a chance to post his updates yet, but it
might be helpful to get some information from him.

If you look at Martin's earlier post ([rfc] focus on Ubuntu updates
rather than PPA packaging), we are talking about refocusing on getting
stable releases into backports rather than trying to keep a PPA
completely in sync.

Part of this is motivated by the fact that we now have 2 stable series
(2.0 and 2.1), which would require us to create another PPA (you can
only have 1 active package in a PPA, and old ones are just not available
anymore.) Then you also have nightlies, etc. And you can't just update
one component because of the lock-step version dependencies. Which would
hint that you need a 'staging' ppa for every actual ppa. So you can
upload a newer bzr, and then a newer bzrtools, etc. And once that
finally reaches a stable collection, you copy that wholesale into the
public ppa (eg a 2.0 stable ppa).

It seems like the stable-release-branch approach should make it a bit
easier to keep ppa stability (though witness the recent mistake of
adding bzr-explorer 0.11 to the stable ppa, when it really isn't
compatible with the stable qbzr...)

I think we are still trying to sort out where a good balance is, between
the effort necessary to keep a PPA (or 4) up-to-date and the value for
people who are using it.

John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAktxpuwACgkQJdeBCYSNAAMq/QCeJ/rbEsacX8KRDMBc2ej6Jtvq
pM4An2icyY1fZOJqoHdn1D17IpI/JFq6
=QOsV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----