Bonjour Didier, Didier Roche [2010-11-18 19:25 +0100]: > However, after some porting discussions and following the natty work > I think we should perhaps consider not doing that because it's going > to take quite some work for a moderated benefit and we would better > spend those efforts in making natty rocking.
Thanks for the summary. I agree that we shouldn't put a lot of work hours into these backports, but rather spend it to making our current daily live CDs actually work and keep them working. If someone wants to test unity, but isn't able to download a daily image and use usb-creator, then we really don't want to ask the same person to install the backported unity packages on a production maverick system. I know for myself how painful the current packages are, and during the development cycle we won't always be able to guarantee that we don't trash the user's configuration. There is a lot of fiddling that needs to happen for proper configuration migration. So I actually think USB images will allow more people to test Unity than Maverick backports. Thanks, Martin -- Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
