Re: apps.formeego.org testing starting
 

Thank you Gents.

Really like what I see so far in the repos.

Re: apps.formeego.org testing starting
 

I have some questions about apps.formeego.org, which weren't answered by anyone so far. See starting from here:
http://forum.meego.com/showthread.php?p=36018#post36018

In short, why can't dependencies on libraries be specified in it?

Re: apps.formeego.org testing starting
 

I am unable to 'rate' a downloaded App. Already have discovered some useful feedback for the developer so would like to share that too.

Re: apps.formeego.org testing starting
 

Short answer: To prevent a dependency mess, we started with 'clean' builds against the sdk only.

Longer answer: Of course we should try to harness the power of shared libraries etc. To prevent people from randomly uploading dependencies and not caring if it breaks other packages, we need to come up with a way to do this properly.

My idea is to have a separate repository where shared libraries are managed (maybe even with a staging repository where we can test breakage when new versions are introduced). We can go for package maintainers per package or a group of interested people who manage the repository.

For this to not become a mess, we need to have a clear policy and good communication between maintainers.

I intend to come up with at proposal on the wiki this week. I'll ask for input/ideas after that. And of course ask for volunteers :)

Re: apps.formeego.org testing starting
 

I guess you are trying this in the client itself? Feedback is not implemented there yet.

Feedback and rating on http://apps.formeego.org should work though.

Re: apps.formeego.org testing starting
 

Thanks for the answer and the work on apps.formeego.org.

I think it is important to the end user :
1) install in the same way softwares with or without dependencies;
2) also install libraries / softwares without icons / softwares CLI (Command Line Interface), there are some waiting for repositories, for example Python Harmattan softwares from the community;
3) easily see the testing softwares from the Apps.ForMeeGo application (without need to go to a web site and install a .deb to enable it).

I now have 7 packages for the case (2), and 3 softwares with GUI and dependencies until the end of this month, all waiting for Apps.Formeego. :cool:

Re: apps.formeego.org testing starting
 

Thanks for the clarification X-Fade! What is considered a clean build against Harmattan and Nemo at the moment? One depending on Harmattan SDK or Mer packages? Will the additional repo with dependencies need to be maintained for Harmattan and Nemo separately?

Re: apps.formeego.org testing starting
 

Clean dependencies means that you don't need any other packages from your home project (Or the project the package is building in)

So once you need to upload a lib first to get your package to build, then you are out of luck in the current setup. Unless you statically link against it. That is a possibility too, but that is not an optimal one.

For extra dependencies to work, we need to address the things I mentioned in my previous posts.

Re: apps.formeego.org testing starting
 

I was asking more about the difference between Harmattan and Nemo in regards to what system packages will be expected by default (since you mentioned SDK packages) and how the proposed repositories where additional dependencies will be added later are going to work out in practice for both (since apps.formeego.org was intended to cater for both systems). Just an example, let's say boost will be added to the new repository. So it'll need to be maintained for all proposed targets? (Harmattan & Nemo at least?).

Re: apps.formeego.org testing starting
 

The repositories would be separate as they have a different target. That is not to say the same packages can't be in both of them. There is the added complication that Harmattan and Nemo are using different packaging. So yes, the shared extra dependencies should be maintained for each target separately.