When should we ask charmers to put things in the archive instead of winging it?

[Francis J. Lacoste]

On 12-02-15 04:17 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Indeed. I think we can help them out quite a bit by also doing a minimal
> effort to package their stuff during the charm review. If they haven't
> taken the steps to verify their source cryptographically yet, rather
> than suggesting that they use ch_file_get, perhaps we should try out
> the minimal steps to package their source code up and put it in a PPA:
> 
> untar
> dh_make
> debuild binary
> 
> If that succeeds in producing a package of the upstream source, that is
> most likely enough for a PPA. This way they don't have to go through the
> hassle of figuring out how to cryptographically verify their tarballs.
> It doesn't have to be an awesome package, but by getting one toe in the
> water, they're one toe closer to having things highly repeatable and
> independent of their website's uptime.

<shameless-self-promotion>
Don't forget the very nice Launchpad feature "Daily Builds".

That's a good compromise between directly getting things from the
upstream repository and having the niceness of a package. But that still
requires some minimal packaging which may be what we are trying to avoid.
</shameless-self-promotion>

-- 
Francis J. Lacoste
francis.lacoste at canonical.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju/attachments/20120215/3348330a/attachment.pgp>