[Tile-serving] Update policy of ppa packages linked from switch2osm.org

[malcolm stanley]

I'm not sure I understand the question entirely,
but I have been following the switch2OSm tutorials and noted that there are
newer versions of things like PostGIS that I needed to translate the
tutorials a bit to use.
so there is that as well...

_________________________________________
malcolm stanley

google.voice:  215.821.6252
Cell: 267.251.9479   <------------- new
email: a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com
twitter / linkedin: amstanley
Read my blog at http://soaringhorse.blogspot.com
_________________________________________


On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Kai Krueger <kakrueger at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> I was wondering what people think the best policy is for how to handle
> updates in the PPA [1] which is linked to from switch2osm.org.
>
> So far the policy has mostly been: Keep the packages up-to-date for
> unreleased Ubuntu versions, but then no longer update them once Ubuntu
> has been released, unless they effect real bugs. I.e. basically I have
> stuck to the freeze policy of Ubuntu. As these packages are used in
> production servers, I'd rather err on the safe side and not update the
> packages unless necessary to reduce the risks of new bugs getting
> introduced.
>
> However for Ubuntu 12.04LTS these packages are therefore nearly a year
> old by now and by the time Ubuntu releases the next LTS they might be
> close to two years (if there aren't any significant bugs found requiring
> further updates).
>
> Lately I have seen an increasing number of "support requests" on irc
> trying to use functionality (like higher zoom leves than z18) that is
> available in the latest source code, but not yet in the old packages in
> the ppa, which has made me wonder if the above policy is necessarily the
> best.
>
> As an alternative, I have created a new PPA called osm-unstable [2],
> which I try to keep more up-to-date. These aren't nightly builds or in
> anyway automated builds. I still try and choose times to update those
> packages where the development is slower and hopefully more stable, but
> they are updated much more frequently than the main ones.
>
> Any thoughts of if this is the best approach?
>
>
> [1] https://launchpad.net/~kakrueger/+archive/openstreetmap
> [2]
> https://launchpad.net/~kakrueger/+archive/osm-unstable
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tile-serving mailing list
> Tile-serving at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tile-serving
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tile-serving/attachments/20130715/48701b3d/attachment.html>