[Qgis-developer] Could ubuntugis PPA be a recommended repository for QGIS 2.0 on Ubuntu ?

[Ivan Mincik]

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Alex Mandel <tech_dev at wildintellect.com>wrote:

> On 05/06/2013 07:40 AM, Ivan Mincik wrote:
>
>> On 05/06/2013 03:50 PM, Jürgen E. Fischer wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Ivan,
>>>
>>> On Mon, 06. May 2013 at 14:58:55 +0200, Ivan Mincik wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wonder if ubuntugis PPA could be a recommended and only one repository
>>>> for QGIS 2.0 on Ubuntu instead of distribution packaged version and
>>>> package from 'http://qgis.org/debian'.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Recommended: ok.
>>> Only: why?
>>>
>>> I don't see the problem with a less intrusive version (ie. qgis on plain
>>> ubuntu) and a more intrusive version (ie. qgis on ubuntugis).
>>>
>>
>> Ubuntu distribution packages stick with 1.7 version which is obsolete.
>>
>>
> That's a function of inheriting official packages from upstream Debian.
> Get newer versions into Debian and it trickles down.


Yes, I understand.


>
>
>
>>> Switching between the same versions from different repositories might be
>>> a
>>> problem, but I suppose that doesn't happen often.
>>>
>>
> I think new users get confused about which one they really want and the
> reality is most actually want the Master builds because of features (but
> that's impractical because of stability). So we should make one of the
> options the Recommended. For me this has always been ubuntugis-unstable,
> primarily because the newer gdal builds support the formats people are
> trying to work with and some of the nastier bugs occur there (if you can't
> read/write your data everything else is pointless).
>
>
>
>>> Maintaining both versions wasn't a big problem in the past, so I don't
>>> expect it
>>> be come one in future.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe a bug fixing could be easier when you deal for example with lesser
>> GDAL versions. Also when a time goes on distribution libraries goes
>> older and more version dependent workarounds must be provided (for
>> example GDAL 1.10 has better support for PostGIS raster and SpatiaLite)
>>
>>
>>> The packages are only built on release, with the current dependencies at
>>> that
>>> point - and only updated, when manually when necessary.  But that also
>>> applies
>>> to both repositories.
>>>
>>>
>> PPA build could be less error prone than self made PBuilder. I am often
>> not sure if my pbuilder updated build deps when building packages
>> depending each other.
>>
>>
>>
>>>  What needs to be done ?:
>>>>
>>>
>>>  1. Fine tuned Debian 'control' file to prevent conflicting installation
>>>> of
>>>>     packages after upgrading from distribution packages to UbuntuGIS
>>>>     (this is the case for example in GDAL)
>>>>
>>>
>>> 0. Report those problems.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I am going to fix them in my PPA and send a patch. But I am not
>> sure where reports for PPAs should be submitted.
>>
>>  http://trac.osgeo.org/**ubuntugis/ <http://trac.osgeo.org/ubuntugis/>
>
> Unless it's an error in the DebianGIS version which we pull from their git
> repo. I need to go looking for where to report those besides mailing list
> and IRC.


Thanks for info.


>
>
>
>>>
>>>  2. More clearly described relation between ubuntugis-stable and
>>>>     ubuntugis-unstable repositories (when the packages move from
>>>> unstable to
>>>>     stable ...)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, that would be nice to know - I only upload to ubuntugis-unstable ;)
>>>
>>
>>
> That is the correct place. Sadly the naming convention borrowed from
> Debian causes nothing but confusion.
> Testing - where to put stuff when you're not sure if it will work.
> Unstable - where you put stuff you want people to use.
> Stable - where we move things to from Unstable when a newer version is
> staged to go into unstable, so that if you want to stick to the older one
> you can by switching to stable. Or if you need to get the older version or
> older deps for some reason (regressions).


Hm, if it is like this, it is really sooo confusing. Is there any
possibility to improve this workflow ?


>
>
>  What I am missing for PPAs is some kind of wiki where these informations
>> could be placed.
>>
>>
> http://trac.osgeo.org/**ubuntugis/ <http://trac.osgeo.org/ubuntugis/>
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20130506/c40ed975/attachment.html>