On Thu, Jan 20, 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
- the overlay ppa is the only one that should be enabled for Linaro release images
[...]
I like the clear limits you're setting to the overlay PPA (rejecting any other concurrent overlays)
As for the 'tools' ppa, I had envisioned this as the single ppa that developers should enable on their desktop systems to get tools they need to work with, and develop for, current Linaro development images, particularly when those desktops are running older versions of Ubuntu
That's relatively close to the reason we created it for during the 10.05 cycle: we basically had to allow people to create/use Linaro images from a lucid install, and not everything was in lucid.
So I'm also happy with this, keeping in mind that it's on a best effort basis, in particular:
I don't intend us to guarantee that the packageswon't cause regressions vs. those versions shipped in that Ubuntu release - indeed, we know for certain that the new linaro-image-tools won't work with images released with 10.11 - but they will be the best tools we can give you for working with Linaro images while minimizing regressions where possible.
and that's in part what triggered this thread, because I wanted to eventually provide lucid/maverick folks with updated l-i-t, but I was suddenly challenged to QA these extensively. There should only be a decently lightweight QA for the tools PPA.
The 'kernel' ppa is something of a mixed bag. There are a variety of test kernels, bsp kernels and pre-release kernels available there, including those we used for our bsp hwpacks in 10.11. It lacks a clear policy, and I'm pretty sure we don't want Landing Teams to be bottlenecked on this single PPA for their ability to build kernel packages (and hwpacks). But I wouldn't do away with this altogether; it's clear to me that John has been getting good use out of it.
To me it sounds like this should be a ~linaro-kernel-wg/release PPA, with eventually some /beta or /daily PPA; or perhaps his own ~jcrigby PPA
Provided that the PPA uploads use proper version numbers (i.e., don't shadow any version number that would be used in the Ubuntu or Debian archives), I think this is reasonable. We can't generally guarantee any particular time frame for inclusion in natty after the WG component is released, so I think it's simpler to have a policy of "always PPA upload".
Ok; this is how I felt as well, simply because of freezes
Thanks!