2009/7/29 Michael Nelson <michael.nelson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> You're right that the PPA serves two audiences and is pretty busy at >> the moment. But it's also the case that many PPA publishers are going >> to be fairly new to making packages so may not want a >> debian-archive-expert-oriented view. > > Specifically which aspects of the mockup do you think are > debian-archive-expert-oriented? (I feel exactly the same way and was > trying to ensure it was welcoming to new PPA publishers). Nothing in your mockup; this was in response to the comment on splitting it. > For them, the PPA web page >> provides important intellectual and emotional confirmation that they >> have actually done what they intended to do. > > So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that it is not > enough that they can view currently building packages etc. at > +ppa/my_ppa/packages to see that info but it should be part of their PPA > summary - yes, good point. I'm not sure if it needs to including things building or waiting to build, but a view of recently changed packages would be good. I think you also need to somehow convey a bit more strongly that there are two views: what's currently in the archive (which changes over time); and things trying to get into the archive (including the queue, failed builds, etc.) But this is probably less urgent than the main view. >> Rather than just the signing key ID I'd suggest you actually give the >> command necessary to add it. There's a big question here about >> whether you should encourage people to copy and paste random sudo >> commands or how to confirm informed consent, but I believe that just >> making it complicated doesn't really help. > > Did you notice that with Karmic you won't need to do that? That is, mvo > has done the work so that we can just add 'ppa:username/ppaname' to > software sources and it automatically imports the key? But sure, we > could include the sudo command in the 'Technical details about this PPA' > drop-down (which should be perhaps 'Manual instructions for adding this > PPA' or something similar. I didn't know that. It is pretty cool. > >> I think showing the full list of packages is useful because it gives a >> sense of whether the ppa really aligns with its purpose or whether >> it's just a random dumping ground as some of the early ones were. > > Hmm... while I think the list of packages should stay there at the > bottom for the moment (I'll include it in the next mock), I am hoping > that we can find a better way to communicate the scope of the PPA > without so much detail. Something like: > > For ppas with <= 5 packages: > This PPA will currently only update the following packages on your system: > * one > * .. > > For ppas with > 5 packages, we'd just refer to the complete table. > > Off topic, but it would be *great* to be able to say "This PPA only > updates the following packages on your system (you will be notified if > further packages are added in the future)." - ie. have some concept of > PPA scope built into PPAs and controlled by owners. That would be nice. I think phrasing like "will currently only update" is inappropriate until you actually add this feature... -- Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/>
This is the launchpad-users mailing list archive — see also the general help for Launchpad.net mailing lists.
(Formatted by MHonArc.)