<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ubuntu 9.04 is here, and work continues</title>
	<atom:link href="http://yokozar.org/blog/archives/63/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://yokozar.org/blog/archives/63</link>
	<description>A blog about Ubuntu, Wine, and the occasional other interest</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:09:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: YokoZar</title>
		<link>http://yokozar.org/blog/archives/63/comment-page-1#comment-54</link>
		<dc:creator>YokoZar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 19:51:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yokozar.org/blog/?p=63#comment-54</guid>
		<description>The PPA and budgetdedicated Repos are often identical.  In most cases it doesn&#039;t matter.

But note the workflow is that I upload it to the PPA &lt;i&gt;before&lt;/i&gt; doing some minimal testing.  In the case of a broken build dependency or a segfault or some substantial change to the package being wrong, a user on the PPA would get a bad package.

The repo is largely there (instead of, say, 2 PPAs) at this point for historical reasons.  I started before there was such a thing as launchpad PPAs.  Now it&#039;s got 160,000 users, and I&#039;m not sure how to properly migrate that many users to a PPA conveniently.  So the path of least resistance is to just keep it going as is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The PPA and budgetdedicated Repos are often identical.  In most cases it doesn&#8217;t matter.</p>
<p>But note the workflow is that I upload it to the PPA <i>before</i> doing some minimal testing.  In the case of a broken build dependency or a segfault or some substantial change to the package being wrong, a user on the PPA would get a bad package.</p>
<p>The repo is largely there (instead of, say, 2 PPAs) at this point for historical reasons.  I started before there was such a thing as launchpad PPAs.  Now it&#8217;s got 160,000 users, and I&#8217;m not sure how to properly migrate that many users to a PPA conveniently.  So the path of least resistance is to just keep it going as is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ronan</title>
		<link>http://yokozar.org/blog/archives/63/comment-page-1#comment-49</link>
		<dc:creator>Ronan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 12:13:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yokozar.org/blog/?p=63#comment-49</guid>
		<description>Hello Scott,

You&#039;re saying that for each new version, you &quot;update the package, push it to the Wine team PPA for building, redownload it from there and put it on the budget dedicated server&quot;.

1. That means the PPA is the preferred repository, right?
2. So is there any reason the recommended repo on wine download page is the budgetdedicated one? And why isn&#039;t the PPA more publicized?

Thanks for the grrreat work,
Ronan</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Scott,</p>
<p>You&#8217;re saying that for each new version, you &#8220;update the package, push it to the Wine team PPA for building, redownload it from there and put it on the budget dedicated server&#8221;.</p>
<p>1. That means the PPA is the preferred repository, right?<br />
2. So is there any reason the recommended repo on wine download page is the budgetdedicated one? And why isn&#8217;t the PPA more publicized?</p>
<p>Thanks for the grrreat work,<br />
Ronan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

