[RFC] apturl repository whitelist application process

[Scott Ritchie]

Alexander Sack wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> One of the topics on the jaunty agenda was to come up with a process
> document that defines how third party repositories can apply for
> apturl whitelisting and how we can ensure that such repositories are
> of high maintenance quality. Based on various discussions we drafted an
> initial policy-like draft, which you can find below. Please comment.
> 

>  * In order to assure that packages in third party repositories are
>  being properly maintained, each landing page that offers an apturl
>  link must also contain a prominent link for reporting bugs in the
>  related launchpad project.
> 

At Wine, we would much rather they report bugs straight to our own bug
tracker, as only I look at the Launchpad bugs.  I imagine other projects
may be the same way.

> ==== Use-Case Prerequisites ====
>  * Only packages where inclusion in the appropriate Ubuntu repository
>  is not feasible for some technical or licensing reason will be
>  considered.

Do beta packages meet this description?

> 
> === Repository Quality Requirements ===
> Users have a right to expect the same level of quality and stability
> from packages installed via apturl as applications installed from
> other methods. Therefore, third party repositories for stable Ubuntu
> release _must_ deliver a stable user-experience comparable to those of
> ubuntu standards.
> 

Apparently not then.  Apparently the goal is for a Wine PPA to take
over, which is fine I guess now that they're signed.  The only thing I
really lose from all this is that I can no longer collect web statistics
on package downloads and such -- will Launchpad be providing any such
feature?

> === Package Requirements ===
>  * Package namespace for the name should start with a unique prefix
>  and not conflict
>    with any existing name on the system
>  * File system layout of the package should be to install to /opt -
>  unless there is a good reason for individual files to be shipped
>  elsewhere.

Some repos will want to replace system packages (eg medibuntu)...this
seems incompatible with these requirements.

>  - Alexander Sack and Michael Vogt
> 

Thanks for your work on this, by the way.  This was indeed a problem
needing solving :)

Thanks,
Scott Ritchie