On 12/19/18 1:05 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> In the Ubuntu PPA case you get free reign over what's in that archive
> and what you backport as part of offering the package. Obviously this
> might conflict with the existing set. But the same is true for a
> centralized volatile archive if you need to b
>> We had volatile, which, redefined properly, could help. I am trying
>to draft such a definition.
>
>Did you get a chance to work on it?
I do have this on my todo list for around Christmas.
People who know me that I deliberately leave out the year, but my intentions
are 2018 ;).
-nik
On Wednesday, 19 December 2018 2:11:43 AM AEDT Holger Levsen wrote:
> instead of volatile we need PPAs.
I think concept of "volatile" is better, stronger.
PPA allows people to ship whatever they want without cooperating in policy
compliant (official) repo. This is the Debian way where many people
On Wednesday, 19 December 2018 9:17:51 AM AEDT Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Did you mean: in an unstable-like “volatile” repo?
Yes perhaps more like "unstable".
I'm saying that IMHO we should have only one common/shared "PPA" for "stable"
users. I do not want many personal/individual archives.
> Ba
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> trust - a something we can only have in backports-like "volatile" repo.
Did you mean: in an unstable-like “volatile” repo?
Backports have a defined mission, which has nothing to do
with the “volatile” proposal. What you were referring to,
integration-
On 2018-12-18 18:40, Pirate Praveen wrote:
On 12/18/18 8:41 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 08:38:39PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
But if that is not possible, volatile as a separate archive is also
fine.
instead of volatile we need PPAs.
I think a redefined volatile is th
On 12/18/18 8:41 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 08:38:39PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>> But if that is not possible, volatile as a separate archive is also fine.
>
> instead of volatile we need PPAs.
I think a redefined volatile is the best option for sharing work. But
PPA
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 10:12 AM Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 08:38:39PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> > But if that is not possible, volatile as a separate archive is also fine.
>
> instead of volatile we need PPAs.
Shortly before the Stretch release, when I was scrambling to
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 08:38:39PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> But if that is not possible, volatile as a separate archive is also fine.
instead of volatile we need PPAs.
--
cheers,
Holger
---
On 2018, ഡിസംബർ 18 7:14:14 PM IST, Rhonda D'Vine wrote:
> And yes, I'm with Alexander, the volatile maintenance can't be dumped
>on the backports team. It's a different workflow anyway.
My proposal for backports is to have only the dependencies of packages in
volatile that fall in the curren
Hey,
* Pirate Praveen [2018-12-18 09:34:46 CET]:
> On 12/3/18 8:11 PM, Dominik George wrote:
> >> well, Debian is using gitlab!!! so this sentence has no sense. The
> >> problem here
> >> is that is a complex software that depends of a lot of pieces and it's
> >> not
> >> easy/possible to fit
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> [adding -devel to cc]
>
> On 12/3/18 8:11 PM, Dominik George wrote:
> >> well, Debian is using gitlab!!! so this sentence has no sense. The
> >> problem here
> >> is that is a complex software that depends of a lot of pieces and it's
> >> not
> >> easy
[adding -devel to cc]
On 12/3/18 8:11 PM, Dominik George wrote:
>> well, Debian is using gitlab!!! so this sentence has no sense. The
>> problem here
>> is that is a complex software that depends of a lot of pieces and it's
>> not
>> easy/possible to fit the definition. So, maybe we should create
13 matches
Mail list logo
