Proposing a New App Developer Upload Process

[Scott Kitterman]

On Tuesday, September 04, 2012 04:25:56 PM Daniel Holbach wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On 04.09.2012 15:28, Emmet Hikory wrote:
> >     The difficulty here is that there is uncontrolled scope for future
> > 
> > conflict.  While the Contents.gz file is useful (and the conflictchecker
> > system more so), if both extras and backports are enabled by default,
> > there
> > is no means by which the review board can determine that a given filename
> > will not be provided by a backport of a new package imported from Debian.
> 
> The fairest solution to this problem would be to turn on a
> conflict-check-before-publish for all parts of the archive. This would
> help us find these (and pre-existing) issues immediately and resolve
> them amongst the maintainers and upstreams.
> 
> My current expectation is only a very tiny fraction of uploads would get
> blocked due to this and the general amount of work to resolve them would
> be small too.
> 
> The /opt requirement on the other hand unfortunately imposes a huge
> amount of work on 1) app developers because our tools don't work this
> way very easily and 2) Ubuntu maintainers who have to enable path
> lookups in tools which don't know about /opt yet.

It seems to me there's an assumption embedded in that response that if an 
extras packages gets a namespace first then it 'owns' it.  I think that's 
inappropriate for that to be the case for any external repository.

Scott K