Styles of Packaging (was: Deprecating the wiki-based Packaging Guide)

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 09:19:31PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Steve Langasek <steve.langasek at ubuntu.com> wrote:

> >On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 02:08:04AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> >> 1.  While there are sponsors that prefer branches over debdiffs/source
> >> packages uploaded somewhere, I don't know of any that will only sponsor
> >> branches.  The reverse is not true.  There are developers that don't do
> >> UDD sponsoring.  By pursuing this path, new packagers limit the
> >> potential candidates to sponsor packages.

> >If there is a consensus that new packagers should be using UDD, we
> >shouldn't let that consensus be held hostage by dissenters that refuse to
> >use UDD.
> >
> >But as per my previous message, I agree that UDD reliability here is a
> >major problem, and no one is well served by developer documentation
> >describing a non-existent utopia instead of the way things actually are.

> I don't think such a consensus, outside of the small group of people that
> invested time in the packaging guide, exists.

There may or may not be such a consensus.  But the consensus is what
matters, and the above argument is therefore irrelevant to whether UDD
should be the recommended workflow.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek at ubuntu.com                                     vorlon at debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20121218/abd49b4f/attachment.pgp>