> > 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 agree this is confusing and maybe the roadmap helps clear it up. >
I You think about it, my proposal to PPA structure is following: * ubuntugis-development - development versions of packages. Package version changes until they move to 'ubuntugis-staging' * ubuntugis-staging - staging versions which will be prepared to move at the time of each new ubuntu distribution release to 'ubuntugis-stable' * ubuntugis-stable - packages for all ubuntu distributions (LTS an non LTS) which will never change versions for a particular ubuntu distribution once released (only bugfixes available) - packages for each new distribution will be uploaded at the time of ubuntu distribution release Packages will be supported for each ubuntu distribution life time. * ubuntugis-backports - backported packages for LTS distributions. Can be upgraded as time goes on for all distributions Maintaining packages in 'ubuntugis-stable' for LTS distributions is long-term, responsible and boring task. This task I see as candidate for dedicated maintainer which could be financially supported by companies or organizations. I propose this structure change with release of 14.04 LTS. Ivan Mincik
_______________________________________________ UbuntuGIS mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu http://trac.osgeo.org/ubuntugis/wiki
