packaging greasemonkey scripts

[Brian Murray]

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 11:58:07AM +0200, Markus Korn wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Mike Rooney <mrooney at gmail.com> wrote:
> > If this seems to work well we should figure it if we want one
> > extension which contains them all, or separate extensions for each and
> > a single metapackage for easy installation of all of them. Any
> > opinions there?
> Hi,
> it is good to see some work on the greasemonkey scripts!
> Your extension is working fine for me, did you create this one by hand
> or by using a `greasemonkey - extension compiler`?
> The only question I have is: how do we ensure that this packages stay
> up-to-date and work fine with every new launchpad rollout. If we
> decide to support edge.lp.net this could mean that we have to update
> the scripts every week (worst case).
> So I think the best idea would be to pack every script in its own package.

The scripts haven't had to be updated very often recently - once every
couple of months.  However, to prevent having to perform lots of Stable
Release Updates we are learning towards only including them in a PPA.

-- 
Brian Murray                                                 @ubuntu.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-quality/attachments/20090616/713d2755/attachment.pgp>