[maemo-developers] Considering /opt and MyDocs in your packages

[From: Matan Ziv-Av]

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, David Greaves wrote:

> Matan Ziv-Av wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, David Greaves wrote:
>>
>>> Matan Ziv-Av wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Andrew Flegg wrote:
>>>>>   * Use of /opt is perhaps now a QA requirement for Extras
>>>>>   * Can we somehow add a /opt check into minimae/maemian? Is it
>>>>>     possible, and is it sensible?
>>>>
>>>> Please recall that maemo5 is not the only maemo. Maemo4 is the latest
>>>> availble for N800/N810 and maemo2 is the latest officailly available on
>>>> 770. Many packages can compile from same source for all versions. Don't
>>>> add artificial obstacles to force developers to make their packages
>>>> incompatible with older versions.
>>>
>>> *cough*   Mer    *cough*
>>
>> Call me when Mer is a reasonable replacement for OS2008 on N810. Until
>> then, please don't try to fragment the community for no reason except for
>> planned obsolescence.
>
> Had I ranted on how it was essential to do something different to provide
> definite support for Mer then that would have been a reasonable although
> impolite response.
> However since it was a gentle reminder that Mer *may* be on the horizon as yet
> another environment that packagers may like to support from the same tarball
> - and one that doesn't currently make use of /opt - then I really don't
> understand it.
>
> However I don't see much evidence that Nokia are considering the legacy
> community here - over time application writers are likely to package for the
> current platform and it's going to make supporting the N810 and older even
> harder for the few of us that are working very, very hard on a way to extend the
> useable life of those devices.
> Now this /opt thing may not affect packaging for Maemo4 or Maemo2 or Mer - but
> I'm not convinced that that is down to luck, not design.
> (However if the decision to use /opt and the current proposed solution *does*
> have "supporting Maemo4" as a requirement and not just a side-effect then I
> apologise.)
>
> Oh, and Matan, having potential users tell us to shut up and "call them when
> it's ready" is frankly offensive. If you want your N810 (I assume) to have
> something that runs apps from fremantle-extras then come and lend a hand.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I opined that the suggested 
change might make it harder to make packages compatible between fremantle 
and OS2008, and that this is a bad thing.

I then interpreted your "*cough*   Mer    *cough*" comment as saying that 
compatibility with OS2008 is irrelevant, since Mer is expected to be 
installed on every N800/N810 device. My reply merely meant to say that Mer 
is not currently an acceptable replacement for most N800/N810 users, and 
that I do not expect it to be in the near future, thus having packages 
compatible with OS2008 whenever possible is an important goal.

This is not a slight on Mer or Mer developers, but mere statment of facts 
as I see them. I am a user and developer of Mer, and it is my preferred OS 
on smartq devices, but is not yet a replacement for OS2008 on N810. Power 
management and compatibility with some applications are the main issues 
I see right now.

We actually seem to be in agreement here: Fremantle packaging decisions 
should take other systems (OS2008, Mer, etc.) into account.

-- 
Matan.