qgil
|
2009-06-22
, 12:51
|
|
Posts: 3,105 |
Thanked: 11,088 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
@ Mountain View (CA, USA)
|
#11
|
|
2009-06-22
, 16:34
|
Posts: 1,208 |
Thanked: 1,028 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#12
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to mikkov For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2009-06-22
, 18:44
|
|
Moderator |
Posts: 7,109 |
Thanked: 8,820 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
@ Vancouver, BC, Canada
|
#13
|
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 User Says Thank You to qole For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2009-06-22
, 19:18
|
|
Posts: 3,105 |
Thanked: 11,088 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
@ Mountain View (CA, USA)
|
#14
|
|
2009-06-25
, 11:18
|
|
Posts: 3,105 |
Thanked: 11,088 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
@ Mountain View (CA, USA)
|
#15
|
Yes, the discussion is even in the plan and I guess it will come when there is a solid proposal in place.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to qgil For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2009-06-25
, 13:39
|
Posts: 1,208 |
Thanked: 1,028 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#16
|
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.
|
2009-06-25
, 22:08
|
|
Posts: 2,535 |
Thanked: 6,681 times |
Joined on Mar 2008
@ UK
|
#17
|
I don't understand why all packages would need to be rebuilt when SSU is released.
The Following User Says Thank You to Jaffa For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2009-06-29
, 13:47
|
|
Posts: 1,665 |
Thanked: 1,649 times |
Joined on Jun 2008
@ Praha, Czech Republic
|
#18
|
|
2009-06-29
, 13:52
|
|
Posts: 4,274 |
Thanked: 5,358 times |
Joined on Sep 2007
@ Looking at y'all and sighing
|
#19
|
gftp-common (= 2.0.18-17maemo4)
|
2009-06-29
, 14:37
|
|
Posts: 2,355 |
Thanked: 5,249 times |
Joined on Jan 2009
@ Barcelona
|
#20
|
If it is failing because it's using = instead of >=; then it is rather stupid behaviour from the Application Manager.
3rd party packages can not: (foo is the one of system update packages defines in SSU meta package)
Depends: foo ( = version A)