> 4. Still at least by my opinion, the PPA naming stable, testing, > unstable is very confusing for all newcomers which automatically expect > the same behavior as in Debian. If this schema remains the same, or it > will change to something other, it needs clearly documented workflow how > packages migrates from testing, staging to production and how often and > under which circumstances production packages are upgraded. I would support this statement. Let's include daily build PPA activties into the UbuntuGIS plan.
It could be: * sync effort with Debian * addition of new packages to universe * set-up of daily build PPAs for the most important/active/crucial packages (QGIS, GRASS, gdal, etc.) Kind regards. _______________________________________________ UbuntuGIS mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu http://trac.osgeo.org/ubuntugis/wiki
