Packaging Help

[Morten Kjeldgaard]

On 25/09/2009, at 10.13, Stephan Hermann wrote:

> I agree that we shouldn't go for packages which are done by drive-by
> people, or upstream devs who want their software in Ubuntu.

I've been banging my head against the wall a few times trying to  
update the sponsorship process to ensure the The latter is actually  
the most important concequence of the former.) Unfortunately, thinking  
here in MOTU-land is so stiff that making changes is not really  
possible.

I'll give my 2 bits anyway.

I generally like Daniels idea and the thinking behind it. And, I  
generally think it's better to try to solve the problems we run across  
using technology, rather than throwing up your arms, saying "there's  
too much work already". People here are developers and software- 
engineers, use your skills!

What is needed IMO is a tight integration of REVU with the PPAs. REVU  
is the friendly nexus of reviewing, it's less formal, less "official"  
and less intimidating than LP.

If the REVUed packages were already sitting in a PPA, and packages  
integrated with Bazaar (because that would be the way REVU stores  
them), we'd have a way for people to get packages reviewed, quality  
increased, and still available for distribution, albeit not in the  
Ubuntu distribution. Having packages built in the PPA, and possibly  
Lintian reports available, relieves the reviewer of having to download  
and build the software being reviewed. Note that REVU already includes  
a rudimentary package checking, but only on source packages.

Next, if there was some kind of usage statistics on the PPAs, the most  
popular, well-maintained and useful packages could be incorporated  
into Ubuntu. We could even pass out "stars" for "Ubuntu approved" PPAs  
with a high quality.

I believe this process would satisfy the wishes of many contributors  
of "getting their package into Ubuntu.", while at the same time  
keeping open reviewing of new packages as an avenue for finding new  
devs. Note also that this process ensures that there is a maintainer  
of the individual packages.

Cheers,
Morten