PPA feedback / questions

["Martin Pool" <mbp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I've just put a Bazaar package up to be built in a PPA.
Congratulations to the PPA developers, it seems like a pretty cool
service.  The quick start guide is also pretty nice.

I've a few questions that are not answered, or clearly answered up there:

1- If I want my package to be built for several Ubuntu releases, how
is that supposed to work?  I guess I need to make several uploads?
Should I have several packages with the same name, or should I append
eg ~feisty1?  Opinions vary:

<poolie> hi
<poolie> i have a source package, i'd like to get PPA to build it on
Hardy as well as Gutsy
<poolie> help?
<lifeless> upload it twice
<lifeless> set the target via the changelog, so you have to build the
source twice too
<poolie> it seems like that'll produce two source packages with the same name...
<poolie> should i add a version suffix for the distro?
<poolie> or just let it happen?
<lifeless> it will produce two source packages with the same name, and
each will go in a separate archive
<lifeless> which is the same as e.g. building bzr 1.0 for two dapper and gutsy
<poolie> ok
<lifeless> look at the current bzr packages, they do this and are done 'right'
<poolie> ok
<poolie> so, practically
<poolie> i need a different directory and a different source tree on
my local disk for each distro to stop the source packages clashing
<Fujitsu> lifeless: Note that they'll have to have different versions,
as I mentioned in #launchpad.

2- The guide says:

> Step 5: If the build fails, you will receive a failure notification. If you don't receive a build failure notification, you can check the status of your build by visiting: https://launchpad.net/people/+me/+archive/+builds?build_state=all&build_text=

That currently gives me "page not found".  Is that because I uploaded
to a team PPA?

3- What's actually happening now?  I got mail saying it was accepted,
but that page is broken, and nothing shows up in
https://edge.launchpad.net/~bzr/+archive/+builds

more discussion:

<poolie> so what would be a better name? 1.0-1bazaar1?
<Fujitsu> 1.0-1~bazaar1
<poolie> ok
<lifeless> Fujitsu: if you have distro contents files it's functional
but ugly to require the person requesting the build to manage the set
of target distros. Bad UI.
<lifeless> poolie: if you are reusing my packaging you want 1.0-1~bazaar1~gutsy1
<lifeless> erm
<Fujitsu> lifeless: Different distros have different build
environments. There's no other way to do it.
<lifeless> 1.0-1~bazaar1gutsy1
<lifeless> etc
* Fujitsu would use ~bazaar1~gutsy1
<poolie> 1.0-1~bazaar1-gutsy1
<lifeless> Fujitsu: Consider it a challenge not something to lay down the law on
<lifeless> poolie: no -
<lifeless> Fujitsu: gutsy isn't before baazaar. only one ~
<poolie> because the digits implicitly separate parts
<poolie> ?
<Fujitsu> lifeless: I would normally upload 1.0-1~bazaar1 to Hardy,
then 1.0-1~bazaar1~gutsy1 to Gutsy, etc.
<Fujitsu> It's how backports are done, and consistency is good.
<lifeless> poolie: also, I wouldn't suggest sorting below debian/ubuntu builds
<lifeless> poolie: because you're wanting to override, not underride
* Fujitsu would definitely advise sorting below them.
<lifeless> Fujitsu: is today your 'disagree with everything' day?
<Fujitsu> Isn't the purpose to just backport 1.0 to previous releases?
<lifeless> no
<lifeless> or at least it hasn't been for the last X period.
<poolie> i want to be above eg 0.91, but below the "official" 1.0
<Fujitsu> That's what I thought you were trying to do, right.
<Fujitsu> So 1.0-1~bazaar1~gutsy1, with the use of the second tilde
being debatable.


-- 
Martin