On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Attila Csipa wrote:
On Monday 29 March 2010 08:07:06 Marius Vollmer wrote:
all the good stuff in them, because they know that these repositories
are well-maintained and backed by a community: packages are not
abandoned, and they can expect them to be updated when necessary.
Yes, we have not talked about this much but if you take a look at the
gronmayer list now, you'll see that a good chunk of repos there has shut down,
taking into oblivion their packages, too, and to make things worse, they
nearly all miss the source section (most likely an unintentional oversight).
With the current state of extras-devel, long term availability is hardly
a point that should be raised against other repositories. At least the
source is available.
Also, consider that the QA/testing process we have is a 'light' (and
occasionally buggy ;) version of what happens in large distros (i.e. if you
have trouble complying with Maemo's requirements, Debian stable compliance is
lightyears away). The historical distros have all been through this phase of
'zillion packages from all over the net' and evolved towards centralized
repositories for a reason (while keeping the *ability* to install whatever you
want). I still think (and will lobby for) maemo.org supported PPAs as a
recommended (not forced !) solution for testing/devel/procedural problems,
instead of general repository anarchy.
The distros you compare have a lot of packagers who go through the QA
process, not the developers. Maemo, on the other hand, has very few
people who take other people's program and package them. Thus, you
expect the developers to go through the QA process themselves, so this
comparison is not really valid.
--
Matan Ziv-Av. ma...@svgalib.org
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
