elementary-dev-community team mailing list archive

[Avi Romanoff <avi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

While I don't disagree with that, I think it's something we're trying to
move away from.

I could be wrong, but I think that for elementary to thrive as a platform
for third-party developers, we're going to automate packaging fully. (Maybe
not for libraries, but certainly for apps).

Granted, this is probably completely moot since none of that technology
exists. I guess I just wanted us to not get *too* carried away about
packaging (and this is probably in agreement with what Christian and Serge
are saying) and not spend a great deal of time if any discussing it in
documentation.

Just my $0.02.

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Christian Dywan <christian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> Am 19.11.2011 09:22, schrieb Сергей:
>
>  Regarding daily builds: they require existing Debian packaging, and I
>> don't think it's a good idea to make the developer package their app,
>> too.
>> Division of labor produces better results, and since I don't have a
>> monopoly for Debian packaging in elementary anymore (Mario Guerriero
>> and Cody Garver package stuff very well), packaging shouldn't be a
>> bottleneck.
>>
> I heavily second that. I've said it more than once. It is very rare for
> developers to package their own software. If a package is any good,
> packagers take care of it. Packagers have the benefit of more experience,
> routine and finding additional bugs. And it takes away development time.
>
>
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~**elementary-dev-community<https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community>
> Post to     : elementary-dev-community@**lists.launchpad.net<elementary-dev-community@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~**elementary-dev-community<https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community>
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/**ListHelp<https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp>
>