Ubuntu Platform developers BOF session?

Matthew Fischer matthew.fischer at canonical.com
Tue Nov 12 14:18:47 UTC 2013

On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Robert Park <robert.park at canonical.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Barry Warsaw <barry at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > [*] % grep '^Package: ' /var/lib/apt/lists/*_Sources | wc -l
> > 43047
> >
> > 920 / 43047 =~ 2%
> This number doesn't tell the whole story. Remember debian has a long
> tail of packages that are very obscure / niche. It may be 2% of the
> whole, but I would guess that it's like 80% of popular desktop
> packages. I don't think I've *ever* branched a UDD branch and found it
> to be current. In fact every SRU I've tried to do based on UDD failed
> because it regressed some previous release that didn't make it into
> the UDD branch.
I disagree here. I've found it to be the opposite. Almost all the UDD
branches I pull are current and it's the rare exception that they are not
for things in R-S-T.  I've had little to no issues with them. However, I've
found that many of the precise ones are broken, which does match your SRU
experience. Unity was one I ran into yesterday being broken for precise. It
claims current but fails to branch with an esoteric launchpad error
message. This happened to me with another package in precise last week also.

> --
> Ubuntu-motu mailing list
> Ubuntu-motu at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20131112/0afca4eb/attachment.html>

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list