On 05/07/2013 03:11 PM, Brian May wrote: > On 7 May 2013 17:03, Thomas Goirand <z...@debian.org > <mailto:z...@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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51890be4.60...@debian.org
