[maemo-developers] Autobuilder repository priority ?

[From: Ed Bartosh]

2009/11/1 Attila Csipa <maemo at csipa.in.rs>:
> On Sunday 01 November 2009 07:46:55 you wrote:
>> So, you propose to have one more queue, which would use only SDK? Or
>> only Extras? or both? Sorry, your proposal is still unclear to me and
>> I doubt it would be clear for other devs.
>
> First we need to decide on whether Extras packages can update packages from
> the SDK/official repos.
It depends on type of packages. SDK contains 2 parts: developer tools
& libs, which are not installed on the device and libs & apps, which
are installed on the device.
For first group updating through Extras is not good, but possible and
most of the time it would work faster than through SDK update
process(if it exists at all).
Packages from second group can break SSU if they they're considered as
a system packages. Actually, application manager doesn't allow to
install them, but if installed using dpkg they can break SSU.

Another concern here is that SDK and device firmware usually released
together, but packages in Extras are not synchronized with those
releases until they appear. It practically means that it's better to
avoid overlapping SDK/Extras as much as possible. However it's still
unclear to me what to do with components taken into SDK from projects
similar to PyMaemo with their own release circle and distributing
scheme.

> I'd say no. In that case, go the Debian way and have an
> sdk-updates and extras-updates queue with a different QA procedure.
Maemo isn't Debian. Debian has consistent repository one for
everything. Maemo has at least 3 different components(SDK, Extras,
device packages) and 2 different operation environments(scratchbox and
device). SDK has never been released through Extras, so separate queue
for SDK updates should be agreed with SDK team. I doubt they need it.

Idea of having separate queue for Extras updates sounds more promising
to me. Developers might become confused with all this set of
repositories, queues and processes, but the idea is good. I support
this.

>
> In case of overlapping SDK/Extras I can't think of a satisfactory solution as
> then fixes for the latter would appear as fixes for the former, which is wrong
> and dangerous. Another issue would be that you would not be getting SDK
> updates if you have extras or extras-updates disabled, which is very
> counterintuitive.
>
True. I also don't see any more or less acceptable solution for this.

-- 
BR,
Ed