Hi All,
I'm back from my trip. I've made a couple of changes to the PPAs and things will hopefully be back to normal pretty soon. I have a couple of queries too...
Note that Launchpad seems to be having some headaches with recipe builds at the minute. See https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/884516
== Changes == * Dropped unneeded version specifier for libwp* dependencies in lp:~inkscape.dev/inkscape/debian-packaging
* Enabled builds of the inkscape-trunk-daily recipe for Ubuntu Precise and Maverick.
* Bumped epoch of package version naming scheme to allow natty builds after the earlier incorrectly-named version
== 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?
* 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?
* 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.
* 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 don't know much about libwpd/libwpg. Do we actually need both dev packages available at build time?
Cheers,
AV