On Oct 10, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >Generally for new packages I find it easier to see changes in both together >as, more than once, I've dealt with an upstream developer who was trying to >roll a correct upstream tarball for a proper release as well as get the >packaging right in parallel.
I'd say that even for existing packages, I find it much nicer to deal with full source than just debian/. I do the former mostly with Ubuntu packages and the latter mostly with Debian packages, and I personally find the UDD way the nicest of the options. >I don't think our current VCS situation is fast enough or easy enough to use >to be a replacement for REVU. While I use /debian VCS branches in Kubuntu (a >lot), I don't find they work very well for new packages. YMMV, of course. Agreed that for some packages and/or personal development environments, Ubuntu's packaging branches (i.e. UDD) isn't yet convenient, fast, or easy enough to use. Improving those issues is (I believe) very high up on the udd/bzr team's agenda. I highly encourage interested folks[1] to engage[2] with that team and help make it better. Especially with coming Launchpad integration features such as build-from-branch-into-ppa and -into-archive, I think this will make for a very compelling and much easier workflow for developing Ubuntu. I should note too that I personally use source branches on probably 95% of packages I touch, which may not be representative of the whole archive, but still. The ones I have to hack on old skool are generally because of package importer issues, which are becoming much more rare, again thanks to the great work of the udd/bzr team. It always feels much more uncomfortable to do things the apt-get source way though. YMMV. Cheers, -Barry [1] I know ScottK knows all this already :) [2] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DistributedDevelopment -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
