Roberto Polli wrote: > On Thursday 07 October 2010 17:58:24 Rich Megginson wrote: > >> IMHO, the "official" place is either the 389 repo or the debian package >> repo. >> > The official debian distribution doesn't support 389: there are some > extensions like EPEL repository. The 389 is in one of these named alioth. I'm > in touch with that guy, but he has few time to maintain. > > Somebody forked that debian repo to create Ubuntu packages: the differences > are in package dependencies like libc & co. > > >> Why can't these scripts go into the debian package repo? >> > I'm investigating in how to create officially supported package for debian. My > aim is to create something that would fit both on debian and ubuntu: that > should manage dependencies and versions. > > So I thought that an automatic script repo should fit for all... > > >> Are they >> different than the scripts used to produce the official debian packages? >> > I don't think so. The QA procedures are different: ubuntu packages need to be > gpg-signed by an authorized key and put on one PPA (personal repos). > > The debian race may be different... > > Today I'll publish on sourceforge Ryan scripts and start working on that... > Ok. There is precedent for having a debian packaging subdirectory in the upstream code. I think Samba does this for some projects. I'm willing to add this to the 389 upstream repos. This will still require a Fedora CLA in order to contribute to the 389 upstream. Also note that each package has its own source repository - 389-ds-base, 389-admin, 389-adminutil, etc. etc. - each one would have a debian packaging subdirectory which would contain scripts and makefiles to build a debian package for just that component. Also note that there is no source repository for 389-ds since it is just a "meta" package in Fedora/EPEL and may be replaced by a package group at some point. > Keep in touch+Peace, > R: > > >
