"Ubuntu Packaging Guide"

Barry Warsaw barry at ubuntu.com
Fri Jun 3 14:46:03 UTC 2011

On Jun 03, 2011, at 09:51 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:

>If you look at http://people.canonical.com/~dholbach/packaging-guide you'll
>find no mention of the 'normal' tools and processes that I (and I believe
>most) Ubuntu developers use.  This is not really an Ubuntu Packaging Guide.
>It's really Ubuntu Packaging using UDD tools.

That's really only because I spent the time to port the UDD wiki pages to the
UPG reST documentation.  Documenting the existing tools is just waiting for a
volunteer, but I don't think Daniel or anyone else is fundamentally opposed to
documenting the way people do packaging now.

Daniel has done some reorganization of the UPG to put the UDD pages in a
"knowledgebase" section, which seems right to me.  It'll look less UDD-heavy
when other folks contribute more articles for the guide.  This is of course, a
separate discussion from the maturity or usefulness of UDD itself.

>I do not believe that this toolset is mature enough for general use and it's
>a mistake to present this to potential new developers as "the" way Ubuntu
>does things.  If this document is going to be presented as an Ubuntu
>Packaging Guide the primary focus ought to be on normal packaging tools.
>Alternately, the guide ought to be renamed to reflect it's focus.
>Just to pick one example, as soon as you want to work on a package with an
>out of date branch, you need to move from the UDD toolset.

True, as is the current bumpy road with quilt3 packages.  I've been mostly
successful at using UDD with quilt3, but no one will claim it's a satisfactory
story.  Fixing the package importer and quilt compatibility are high on the
bzr team's list of priorities and I have every confidence that they'll achieve
success here.

So I agree that UDD is not mature yet, but I do think it's far enough along
that you can use it for many packages.  And the only way to improve it is to
use it, file bugs, provide feedback, etc.  I personally believe UDD will
eventually provide compelling advantages over the current toolset, which is
why I'm willing to go through some pain with it now.  I certainly don't
begrudge anybody who makes a different choice based on their own needs and

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20110603/bd61b8d4/attachment-0001.pgp>

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list