[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Developer repositories for Debian

On 13202 March 1977, Joachim Breitner wrote:

>>  - a PPAMAIN can have its full package set transferred into its base
>>    suite  with one command, provided the base suite is configured to
>>    receive such  transfers. (Currently we imagine only unstable will be
>>    configured for it, but other suites might gain this feature
>>    too). Only packages with  versions NEWER than those existing in the
>>    base suite will be transferred. All version checks of the base suite
>>    must be fulfilled for the transfer to work.
> with a big: „Yes, thanks in advance“ from the Haskell team. This will
> allow us to keep the uninstallable count in unstable very low at all
> times, even while we rebuild stuff for a new compiler.

Yep, one of the reasons for it (though not with haskell especially in
mind, there are more packages that profit from it).

> Feature suggestion: Optionally only allow the package set transferred to
> unstable if all transferred packages are installable in the final set,
> or similar checks as applied in the unstable → testing transition.

That would mean having a kind-of-britney run, and only if that succeeds
move it over. Should be doable, i think.

>>  - a PPAMAIN must have packages with unique versions which  have to be
>>    greater than in the base suite. Package versions are global  for the
>>    archive, so the ppaname has to be included in the version  uploaded
>>    to the PPA.
> What if it is decided by the maintainers of a certain package to do the
> uploads always to a PPA first and from there, via the above command, to
> unstable. Will it then be ok to use „normal“ version numbers?

Good question. The thought behind this is that a ppa haskell1 can
contain package debhelper as well as a ppa ruby42 can contain it. Both
with different changes to it. Which should work, and the easiest way to
ensure that is that each new upload to a ppa includes its ppaname.

bye, Joerg
<lamont> Those people, who, when they do something currently outside of
the official rules for behavior [your choice here] 1) are
exempted from censure, or 2) (more accurately) by their actions
define a new set of rules for acceptable behavior in such context.

Reply to: