[maemo-developers] Autobuilder repository priority ?
From: Ed Bartosh bartosh at gmail.comDate: Mon Nov 2 11:27:07 EET 2009
- Previous message: Autobuilder repository priority ?
- Next message: Autobuilder repository priority ?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
2009/11/2 Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah at jeremiahfoster.com>: > > On Nov 1, 2009, at 18:05, Ed Bartosh wrote: > >> 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. > > I don't think any Extras packages should update official SDK 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. > > Can't we have a monolithic repo which is _identical_ to the device, > plus dev tools? This would allow developers to know in advance which > dependencies are on the device and which dependencies they will have > to pull in themselves. > I don't know. Can we? >> 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. >> What about this? Can we have separate queue for updates? Any other ideas? >>> >>> 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. > > Having a single repo for each distro would be ideal, with _all_ the > software required to run the device in the repo. Then we can co- > ordinate the release as a single, monolithic repository. I know this > is wishful thinking because not everything is licensed to allow this, > but if we could get as much as possible in a single location, then we > make life easier for developers. > Sounds like a long-term plan. Attila was asking us to solve problem with updates. And he proposed good solution. Shell we implement it right now or you propose to wait until we have Maemo distro and all this great things? -- BR, Ed
- Previous message: Autobuilder repository priority ?
- Next message: Autobuilder repository priority ?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]