[maemo-developers] Maemo Extras Guidelines

[From: Graham Cobb]

On Monday 04 February 2008 15:27:48 Niels Breet wrote:
> In general I think we need to have some rules in place to ensure that
> only quality software ends up in extras. Promoting from extras-devel
> would even be better. (More on that in a separate mail)

Excellent topic for discussion.  Actually I am not sure that we should be 
trying to enforce much in terms of the quality of the application itself.  I 
think it is better that people have access to applications without the 
repository mess we have now than that we offer any guarantees of quality of 
the application.  

If people want to know what the community thinks of a particular application 
we would do better to make available stats on number of downloads (gives you 
an idea on the number of people using it -- 3 downloads should set off 
warning flags!) and have a feedback rating scheme.

However, I do agree we should set some minimum criteria mainly to do with 
applications not interfering with each other.

> Quality:
>   - The package must not brick the device.
>   - The package needs to install and uninstall cleanly.
>   - The package must not break other packages.
>   - The package can only depend on libraries that are present in the
>     default firmware image or libraries that are present in extras.
>     (This means that all libraries need to be uploaded to extras if you
>     depend on them. A user should never need SDK repositories!)
>   - Package Section starts with "user/" for user installable applications
>   - Package Name doesn't conflict with another package in extras.
>   - Package has an icon and description.

I agree with these and would add that the section should be one of a list 
maintained on the Wiki (so, if you are absolutely certain you need to add a 
new section you at least put it up on the Wiki where it can be seen and 
discussed).

>   - The package does not crash easily.
>   - The package must have proper power management.
>     (not suck your battery dry)

I don't agree with these.  While these are clearly very worthwhile goals and 
should be listed as expectations ("don't expect to get any positive ratings 
if your application crashes or eats batteries") I don't think they should be 
requirements.

I would, however, add:

- The package has spent some time in extras devel to prove that it can be 
installed in conjunction with other packages without causing disruption.

> > What about the alpha of my music player?
>
> I don't think that it will pass all quality criteria.

Maybe it should.  If the application is ever going to move from alpha to beta 
it is going to need exposure and feedback.  It should be up to the author to 
judge when they are ready for the higher level of exposure available.

But, I think it would be useful to describe an expected flow.  Something like:

- Someone develops an app and wants to get some use and exposure.  

- Put the app in extras-devel , create a .install file and host it somewhere, 
announce the app and its .install file on ITT, announce it in the maemo.org 
application catalogue, work out how to get it mentioned in various blogs, 
etc.

- Get a reasonable number of users (5?)

- Fix bugs!

- Once there are a reasonable number of users, over a reasonable time period 
(at least 6 weeks, say) and you are ready for the next stage of exposure (and 
you are sure the app is a good citizen), promote it to extras.

> > What about non-free software?
>
> We need to discuss this, so feedback wanted!

It should probably be up to the user whether they are willing to use a 
non-free application.  But it should be a separate repository so you know 
whether you are using free or non-free software.  One problem is that Maemo 
really isn't big enough to justify the sort of arguments that go on in Debian 
about whether a particular licence is free or non-free.  It is probably 
enough to say that Debian will be followed (if the app or licence is already 
in Debian use their categorisation, if not try to follow their definitions).

> > What about patent encumbered software?
>
> Obvious cases should be avoided, I think. But we as community can't
> investigate all patents, so it can happen that we have patented features
> in hosted software.

As Nokia host it, they will probably want to say something like packages will 
be removed if there appear to be serious patent concerns.

Graham