On Tuesday, September 04, 2012 04:25:56 PM Daniel Holbach wrote: > Hello, > > On 04.09.2012 15:28, Emmet Hikory wrote: > > The difficulty here is that there is uncontrolled scope for future > > > > conflict. While the Contents.gz file is useful (and the conflictchecker > > system more so), if both extras and backports are enabled by default, > > there > > is no means by which the review board can determine that a given filename > > will not be provided by a backport of a new package imported from Debian. > > The fairest solution to this problem would be to turn on a > conflict-check-before-publish for all parts of the archive. This would > help us find these (and pre-existing) issues immediately and resolve > them amongst the maintainers and upstreams. > > My current expectation is only a very tiny fraction of uploads would get > blocked due to this and the general amount of work to resolve them would > be small too. > > The /opt requirement on the other hand unfortunately imposes a huge > amount of work on 1) app developers because our tools don't work this > way very easily and 2) Ubuntu maintainers who have to enable path > lookups in tools which don't know about /opt yet.
It seems to me there's an assumption embedded in that response that if an extras packages gets a namespace first then it 'owns' it. I think that's inappropriate for that to be the case for any external repository. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
