On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Alex Valavanis <valavanisalex@...400...> wrote:
== Queries ==
- At the moment, the "stable" recipe is actually building the head of
the lp:inkscape/0.48.x branch. Do we actually want to do this, or should we build inkscape 0.48.2?
0.48.2 is what we want.
- Is there much point having a daily build of the stable package?
Surely we only need to rebuild it when a new stable version is released?
It's a waste of resources. You are correct in only building once there is a new stable version. The only exception to this would be if we also build for Precise, since the libs are going to change often.
- Have we decided which Ubuntu versions we support? I think it's safe
to drop Ubuntu Hardy now - Canonical no longer support it for desktop installations. I'll have to do some tweaking with the packaging code to build for Lucid, but it shouldn't be too difficult.
Sounds good by me.
- Thinking about it, do we really need two separate PPAs? As far as I
understand it, we can get multiple recipes to build in a single PPA. We can just create separate source packages ("inkscape-stable" and "inkscape-trunk") and use them to build similarly-named binaries in the same PPA. Should be easier for users that way. We can specify the binary packages as conflicting, to prevent any dependency hell.
I'm fine with it as long as the users can have both copies installed at once. In fact, if we're going to go this route, can we add Tavmjong's Mesh branch as well (and provide the needed versions of cairo and pixman)? If we do, the cairo and pixman versions provided by the Xorg Edgers PPA works with his branch.
Cheers, Josh