While I don't disagree with that, I think it's something we're trying to move away from.
I could be wrong, but I think that for elementary to thrive as a platform for third-party developers, we're going to automate packaging fully. (Maybe not for libraries, but certainly for apps). Granted, this is probably completely moot since none of that technology exists. I guess I just wanted us to not get *too* carried away about packaging (and this is probably in agreement with what Christian and Serge are saying) and not spend a great deal of time if any discussing it in documentation. Just my $0.02. On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Christian Dywan <[email protected]>wrote: > Am 19.11.2011 09:22, schrieb Сергей: > > Regarding daily builds: they require existing Debian packaging, and I >> don't think it's a good idea to make the developer package their app, >> too. >> Division of labor produces better results, and since I don't have a >> monopoly for Debian packaging in elementary anymore (Mario Guerriero >> and Cody Garver package stuff very well), packaging shouldn't be a >> bottleneck. >> > I heavily second that. I've said it more than once. It is very rare for > developers to package their own software. If a package is any good, > packagers take care of it. Packagers have the benefit of more experience, > routine and finding additional bugs. And it takes away development time. > > > -- > Mailing list: > https://launchpad.net/~**elementary-dev-community<https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community> > Post to : > elementary-dev-community@**lists.launchpad.net<[email protected]> > Unsubscribe : > https://launchpad.net/~**elementary-dev-community<https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community> > More help : > https://help.launchpad.net/**ListHelp<https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp> >
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
