1) experimental packages (like Release Candidates) are uploaded to
Testing PPA [1]
2) final version packages are uploaded to Testing and Unstable [2]
3) Stable PPA can contain older version [3]
For user who want to help with testing experimental packages: please
use Testing PPA otherwise use Unstable (if you prefer up-to-date
version) or Stable PPA (you prefer stability - slightly older
versions).
Do you have any chance to influence the naming of the PPAs?
As recently also discussed on the QGIS mailinglist, packages from a repository named "unstable" can get blocked by system administrators (who not necessarily will take the time to try to understand what is behind all applications), regardless if I as a user tell them that "unstable" actually means "current release"...
Would be nice to have a more admin-friendly name there...
Cheers
Stefan
-----Original Message-----
From: grass-dev [mailto:grass-dev-bounces@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Martin Landa
Sent: 16. september 2016 13:03
To: GRASS users list <grass-user@lists.osgeo.org>; GRASS developers list <grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org>
Subject: [GRASS-dev] ubuntu gis policy
Hi all,
recently ubuntugis maintainers changed their policy. This means that currently is used this workflow:
1) experimental packages (like Release Candidates) are uploaded to Testing PPA [1]
2) final version packages are uploaded to Testing and Unstable [2]
3) Stable PPA can contain older version [3]
For user who want to help with testing experimental packages: please use Testing PPA otherwise use Unstable (if you prefer up-to-date
version) or Stable PPA (you prefer stability - slightly older versions).
recently ubuntugis maintainers changed their policy.
Some context about UbuntuGIS seems to be in order.
UbuntuGIS doesn't really have a policy, unlike Debian GIS which does
have a team policy in addition to the Debian Policy.
There are pretty much no active contributors to UbuntuGIS who maintain
backports of the Debian packages for Ubuntu LTS releases, the packaging
work still done for Ubuntu is centred around OSGeo-Live which does get
package updates for its releases.
The lack of development manpower in UbuntuGIS while still having a
sizeable userbase let to Angelos' initiative to copy the Ubuntu packages
from the OSGeo-Live PPAs to the UbuntuGIS PPAs.
If you care about packages for current upstream version on Ubuntu,
consider contributing to UbuntuGIS. Companies relying on UbuntuGIS for
their operations should consider employing someone to work on UbuntuGIS.
That's not entirely correct. The recently updated packages in the
UbuntuGIS stable PPA were copied from OSGeo-Live 9.0 whereas the ones in
the UbuntuGIS unstable PPA were copied from OSGeo-Live 9.5 and later
from 10.0.
Do you have any chance to influence the naming of the PPAs?
As recently also discussed on the QGIS mailinglist, packages from a repository named “unstable” can get blocked by system administrators (who not necessarily will take the time to try to understand what is behind all applications), regardless if I as a user tell them that “unstable” actually means “current release”…
Would be nice to have a more admin-friendly name there…
experimental packages (like Release Candidates) are uploaded to Testing PPA [1]
final version packages are uploaded to Testing and Unstable [2]
Stable PPA can contain older version [3]
For user who want to help with testing experimental packages: please use Testing PPA otherwise use Unstable (if you prefer up-to-date
version) or Stable PPA (you prefer stability - slightly older versions).
2016-09-16 13:12 GMT+02:00 Blumentrath, Stefan <Stefan.Blumentrath@nina.no>:
As recently also discussed on the QGIS mailinglist, packages from a repository named "unstable" can get blocked by system administrators (who not necessarily will take the time to try to understand what is behind all applications), regardless if I as a user tell them that "unstable" actually means "current release"...
I completely understand, and agree with your opinion. It's very
confusing. Also from Debian point of view (experimental -> unstable ->
testing -> stable). Please express your opinion on ubuntugis ml (or I
can forward your message if you prefer). Martin
Would be great if you could forward the mail, as I am not on that ml...
Cheers
Stefan
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Landa [mailto:landa.martin@gmail.com]
Sent: 16. september 2016 14:18
To: Blumentrath, Stefan <Stefan.Blumentrath@nina.no>
Cc: GRASS developers list <grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org>
Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] ubuntu gis policy
Hi Stefan,
2016-09-16 13:12 GMT+02:00 Blumentrath, Stefan <Stefan.Blumentrath@nina.no>:
As recently also discussed on the QGIS mailinglist, packages from a repository named "unstable" can get blocked by system administrators (who not necessarily will take the time to try to understand what is behind all applications), regardless if I as a user tell them that "unstable" actually means "current release"...
I completely understand, and agree with your opinion. It's very confusing. Also from Debian point of view (experimental -> unstable -> testing -> stable). Please express your opinion on ubuntugis ml (or I can forward your message if you prefer). Martin
2016-09-16 13:02 GMT+02:00 Martin Landa <landa.martin@gmail.com>:
for those how are testing Ubuntu daily builds [1]. I changed
dependency from `ubuntugis-unstable` to `ubuntugis-experimental`. So
in this case update your `sourcelist.d` area.