On 02/10/13 19:50, Guillem Barba Domingo wrote:
El 02/10/2013 16:05, "Cédric Krier" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> va escriure:
>
> On 02/10/13 06:46 -0700, Axel Braun wrote:
> >
> >
> > Am Dienstag, 1. Oktober 2013 18:39:08 UTC+2 schrieb Cédric Krier:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > URL: http://codereview.tryton.org/1110002/
> > > >
> > >
> > > My concern is that it is a personal package and not an official
openSUSE
> > > (if I understand correctly). I would prefer (as I don't have any
> > > knowledge in openSUSE package) that we link only packages
managed by the
> > > official workflow of the distribution.
> > >
> > > The build service offers users the ability to build packages for
various
> > platforms (Fedora, Red Hat, Cent OS, Ubuntu, Debian,..) from a single
> > source. openSUSE as distribution bases completely on packages from the
> > build service.
>
> We are not really concern, packages already exist for Fedora (and I
> guess derivates), Ubuntu and Debian
I think it's good to have packages of Tryton, specially it they are
updated.
The webpage could have two lists of packages: officials and personals,
and each one with the list of available versions.
Cedk, you talk about the official workflow of distribution, but
sometimes it's bad. For example, in Debian the packages are for a very
old version of Tryton, so Debian and Ubuntu users will prefere a PPA
with the latests stable versions.
It is a very common situation for many products.
In summary, I think that more packages (and all of them listed in
Tryton's website) and more explicit information (officials/personal)
is better for users.
I fully agree.
--
Jordi Esteve
Consultor Zikzakmedia SL
[email protected]
Mòbil 679 170 693
Zikzakmedia SL
Dr. Fleming, 28, baixos
08720 Vilafranca del Penedès
Tel 93 890 2108
