Renato Araujo Oliveira Filho wrote: > We decided do a very simple binary debian packages to avoid > complications with debian control and rules files. Then only the > basics deps are necessary to install, you can install it in any debian > like distro with qt 4.7. > > I have thought of create a PPA for the package before, but like I told > these are very basic packages without all dependencies. To implement a > PPA we need improve (complicate) the packaging process, and make > specif package for each distro, witch is already done by the package > managers who has a lot of work to do in every release cycle. > > Another point is, with this raw packages, we can avoid people to do > wrongs updates, only who really know what are doing will use our > package. The main point of this is because we can't ensure if the > package are 100% working, the build system is automatic then some > problems can happen and then make the package invalid.
I must admit I was first very puzzled to see those "raw" packages (without corresponding source + debian/). But thinking about it a bit more, I think I now agree with Renato here. End- user consumption should go trough well-thought channels (distributions, official PPAs) for well-defined code (tagged versions, …). Daily builds are useful for developpers to catch regressions as early as possible (build failures, regression in tests, …), but in the end, as long as the project "releases early, releases often", users are best with fine- tuned packages anyway. OdyX _______________________________________________ PySide mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pyside.org/listinfo/pyside
