Brendan Jurd [2013-02-19 7:14 +1100]:
> This may be a daft question to ask at this point in the discussion,
> but what does apt.postgresql.org buy us that a PPA doesn't?
From my POV it's really not about the technical implementation of the
archive (PPA or otherwise). It's because apt.p.o has a lot more
packages, in particular extensions or pgadmin, and also because it's
got a really nice automatic Jenkins deployment and testing system
which ensures that all integration regression tests succeed before a
package hits the world.
I. e. it centralizes all the efforts of backporting postgresql stuff.
In principle you can do the very same with a PPA as well, but at the
end of the day users shouldn't really care what we call "that thing
over there that gives me packages" like, as long as there's a simple
way to get it?
> If the concern is to have Debian/Ubuntu packaging that has an
> "official" project flavour, as opposed to Martin's "personal" package
> archive, why don't we just set up a "postgres" PPA or similar?
Making it smell "official" is certainly an aspect. But OTOH I'm quite
surprised how many people use my PPA, so it doesn't seem to be much of
a concern :-)
> I guess I just don't understand why in Zeus' beard we would move away
> from the PPA arrangement.
I'm not pushing to move away from a PPA, but away from having to do
duplicate work, and wanting to close my rather small PPA for the
comparatively rich set of packages that apt.p.o offers.
Thanks,
Martin
--
Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)