Re: Doubts about PPA in Debian
On 05/07/2013 03:11 PM, Brian May wrote:
> On 7 May 2013 17:03, Thomas Goirand <firstname.lastname@example.org
> <mailto:email@example.com>> wrote:
> Now, if I had PPA, then I could follow upstream release cycles.
> Every 6
> months, I would destroy the PPA for OpenStack stable -2, and create a
> new stable PPA. I could put all the backport software I need in there.
> No need to worry anymore about the release cycles not in sync with
> we do in Debian. Since most things are Python, I could still
> continue to
> upload the modules into SID (or Experimental during the freeze),
> and as
> the brilliant plan for the Debian PPA will not add duplication, it
> be "for free", just giving a list of packages that I wish to import.
> In what way would this be better then using Debian Backports?
Currently, I think I will upload Grizzly to SID (it is currently in
wait for it to migrate to Jessie, and then upload to backports, so that we
have a workable solution. Though that's not best.
Debian backports offers me *one* repository. I need 3 of them:
- stable -1 (currently OpenStack Folsom)
- stable (currently OpenStack Grizzly)
- development (currently OpenStack Havana)
Also, the rules in backports is that packages should be already migrated
to testing. The point is, if I had PPAs, I wouldn't at all upload to SID
for a migration to testing, because it would be better if the packages were
living in the PPA only (that would be a lot more flexible and adapted to my