On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Ryan Oram <ryano...@trentu.ca> wrote:
> On Fri Jul 9 23:08:14 BST 2010, Joshua Timberman wrote: > > Actually, the difference is that sbuild uses schroot with LVM snapshots > for the chroot environments. It's quite a nice, elegant system and I prefer > it to pbuilder for developing packages. > > Ya, I can definitely see why sbuild would be used for an automated > build environment. It's quite a bit more customizable and better > designed for industrial use. > > These differences aren't really all that relevant to individual > developers though. sbuild and pbuilder both build in a chroot > environment and if a package will build on one, it will very likely be > able to build on the other. > > I'm probably going to use pbuilder for locally checking if the packages > build in a chroot. The commands for pbuilder are very similar > to those of debuild and it's quite a bit easier to use. It's more than > enough for testing to see if the packages will build when uploaded to > Launchpad, which is really all I would use it for. sbuild would be > overkill for my individual use. > > ----- > > Anyways, looking over both the projects of GetDeb and AppUpdate, they > compliment each other more than they duplicate. GetDeb seems to build > most of their own packages, while AppUpdate pulls them directly from > the developer PPAs. This allows GetDeb to have more packages than > AppUpdate, but this also allows for AppDate to have more up to date > packages. Comparing the packages present on both GetDeb and AppUpdate, > the packages on AppUpdate are a bit newer. > > My service will build very little on its own, as I feel that building > the packages should be the responsibility of the developer. The goal > of AppUpdate is to aggregrate the ~20 PPAs many Ubuntu users have in > their sources, while giving the packages some extra testing to prevent > the breakages that arise when a developer pushes a broken package to > their PPA. Its main focus is to be a one stop place for Ubuntu users > to get the latest applications for their install, without the risks of > broken packages. > > Links to the AppUpdate PPAs: > > Stable: > https://launchpad.net/~infinity-team/+archive/appupdate-stable<https://launchpad.net/%7Einfinity-team/+archive/appupdate-stable> > Testing: > https://launchpad.net/~infinity-team/+archive/appupdate-testing<https://launchpad.net/%7Einfinity-team/+archive/appupdate-testing> > > Thanks, > Ryan > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > I am sorry but you are not correct, GetDeb only does packaging when such is required, we try to avoid redundant work and package forking. Re-using Ubuntu, Debian and PPAs building rules is a requirement if you intend to minimize dependency conflicts with official packages. However we will not use a developer's PPA or someone else build rules if we don't find them to have sufficient quality. We did a lot packaging because we have provided many applications before they were packaged anywhere else. João Luís Marques Pinto GetDeb Team Leader http://www.getdeb.net http://blog.getdeb.net
-- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
