Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
qgil's Avatar
qgil is offline qgil
06-22-2009 , 08:51 AM
Posts: 3,105 | Thanked: 11,057 times | Joined on Jul 2007 @ Mountain View (CA, USA)
#11
You are right. Asked to Richard/Marius. The message appears, in theory, when installing a 3rd party app can mess a SSU. It's a young feature being tested these days, so let's not worry much about it now.
 
mikkov is offline mikkov
06-22-2009 , 12:34 PM
Posts: 1,204 | Thanked: 1,009 times | Joined on Oct 2007
#12
I read the code again and I'm pretty sure that the reason was that madbomber has a depency to certain version of madbomber-data (madbomber-data (= 0.2.5-3maemo4)).

Depending to certain version of the base system would break SSU's, but depending to certain version of 3rd party package should be OK as long as it's comparable to madbomber-data (ie not a library).

I hope that the "the 3rd party package policy" is documented once it's done. It wouldn't hurt if it was discussed even before it was done.
 

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to mikkov For This Useful Post:
qole's Avatar
qole is offline qole
06-22-2009 , 02:44 PM
Moderator | Posts: 7,070 | Thanked: 8,589 times | Joined on Oct 2007 @ Vancouver, BC, Canada
#13
Originally Posted by mikkov View Post
I hope that the "the 3rd party package policy" is documented once it's done. It wouldn't hurt if it was discussed even before it was done.
Yes, please. Perfect chance to avoid community backlash by discussing a policy that will affect the community before it is implemented.
__________________
qole.org --- twitter --- Easy Debian wiki page
Please don't send me a private message, post to the appropriate thread.
Thank you all for your donations!
 

The Following User Says Thank You to qole For This Useful Post:
qgil's Avatar
qgil is offline qgil
06-22-2009 , 03:18 PM
Posts: 3,105 | Thanked: 11,057 times | Joined on Jul 2007 @ Mountain View (CA, USA)
#14
Yes, the discussion is even in the plan and I guess it will come when there is a solid proposal in place. I have been told that this 'SSU check' has got its first implementation as a test a week ago...
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to qgil For This Useful Post:
qgil's Avatar
qgil is offline qgil
06-25-2009 , 07:18 AM
Posts: 3,105 | Thanked: 11,057 times | Joined on Jul 2007 @ Mountain View (CA, USA)
#15
Originally Posted by qgil View Post
Yes, the discussion is even in the plan and I guess it will come when there is a solid proposal in place.
Here we go: http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras/3rd_Party_Package_Policy
__________________
http://maemo.org/profile/view/qgil/ + http://qt-project.org
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to qgil For This Useful Post:
mikkov is offline mikkov
06-25-2009 , 09:39 AM
Posts: 1,204 | Thanked: 1,009 times | Joined on Oct 2007
#16
Seems fine to me but following quote doesn't make sense to me (except that it's huge work).

How can we test that all 3rd party SW available doesn't break the SSU installation? Before SSU goes public to a repository, rebuilding all 3rd party SW is the best way. This is a huge work and can not be controlled easily, but at least it should be feasible within the maemo.org Extras scope.
I don't understand why all packages would need to be rebuilt when SSU is released.
 
Jaffa's Avatar
Jaffa is offline Jaffa
06-25-2009 , 06:08 PM
Posts: 2,514 | Thanked: 6,571 times | Joined on Mar 2008 @ UK
#17
Originally Posted by mikkov View Post
I don't understand why all packages would need to be rebuilt when SSU is released.
Confused me at first as well. I guess it should actually be "any package which depends on a package in the new SSU must be checked for version compatibility". Maybe?
__________________
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
 

The Following User Says Thank You to Jaffa For This Useful Post:
Andre Klapper's Avatar
Andre Klapper is offline Andre Klapper
06-29-2009 , 09:47 AM
Posts: 1,665 | Thanked: 1,642 times | Joined on Jun 2008 @ Praha, Czech Republic
#18
I tried to install gFTP in current Fremantle but that also was not possible as it "breaks the 3rd party package policy" according to the Application Manager.
However, running "apt-get install gftp-gtk" worked fine.
/me confused.
__________________
maemo.org Bugmaster
 
qwerty12's Avatar
qwerty12 is offline qwerty12
06-29-2009 , 09:52 AM
Posts: 4,274 | Thanked: 5,317 times | Joined on Sep 2007 @ Looking at y'all and sighing
#19
Looking at what has been said here, I guess it fails because:
Originally Posted by gFTP's (gftp-gtk) Dependency line
gftp-common (= 2.0.18-17maemo4)
If it is failing because it's using = instead of >=; then it is rather stupid behaviour from the Application Manager.
 

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to qwerty12 For This Useful Post:
javispedro's Avatar
javispedro is offline javispedro
06-29-2009 , 10:37 AM
Posts: 1,891 | Thanked: 3,251 times | Joined on Jan 2009 @ Barcelona
#20
Originally Posted by qwerty12 View Post
If it is failing because it's using = instead of >=; then it is rather stupid behaviour from the Application Manager.
And seems to contradict 3rd package policy as defined by qgil in wiki:
3rd party packages can not: (foo is the one of system update packages defines in SSU meta package)
Depends: foo ( = version A)
(neither gftp-common nor madbomber-data are system packages)

So I guess this is a h-a-m bug. Or I'm misunderstanding the policy.
Last edited by javispedro; 06-29-2009 at 10:40 AM.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to javispedro For This Useful Post:
Reply
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:09 AM.

Contact Us - Home - Archive - Top