Re: Doubts about PPA in Debian

[Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>]

On 05/07/2013 03:11 PM, Brian May wrote:
> On 7 May 2013 17:03, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org
> <mailto:zigo@debian.org>> 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
>     what
>     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
>     will
>     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
Experimental),
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
and wait
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
use case).

Cheers,

Thomas