On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 11:30:41PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 02:46:11PM -0600, René Mayorga wrote: > > > Yes, absolutely. I'd even dare to say that having something like PPA for > > > Debian is a priority. > > > > I do not agree on this, if the package is good enough and has somebody willing > > to maintain it, the package may belong to the archive. > > There are two views of PPAs, one is internal for developers, one is > external for users. > > The internal for developers is offering a lightweight framework to > experiment with changes that would be otherwise unfeasible to experiment > with (for a whole lot of reasons, e.g.: it's freeze time and you can't > upload "dangerous" stuff; you can't use experimental because you're > already using it with another development line; you want to show that > you've valuable changes to offer also for packages you do not maintain > and with which the legitimate maintainer disagree and want to be > convinced you're right). According to that view, PPAs are nothing short > of a "debhub" (see one of the first mails from Pierre Habouzit in this > thread, who has surely described this concept better than me in this > paragraph). > > The view above is the one I see as a priority for Debian Great, thanks for the clarification. > After all, in that respect what is the difference between that and unofficial APT > repositories that many of us already maintain at people.d.o/~something > or something.debian.net? Do you want to shut them down as well? no, I was expressing over the PPA as an official services that allow users to upload any package without any quality control. Cheers -- René
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature