Active Topics
-
Is there a section to talk about Java ME? Apps, etc. (6)
to General by Kalatti - 4 days, 7 hrs ago - more...
 |
qgil |
2009-06-22
, 12:51
|
|
Posts: 3,105 |
Thanked: 11,088 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.
|
|
2009-06-22
, 16:34
|
|
Posts: 1,208 |
Thanked: 1,028 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.
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: | ||
 |
|
2009-06-22
, 18:44
|
|
Moderator |
Posts: 7,109 |
Thanked: 8,820 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
@ Vancouver, BC, Canada
|
#13
|
Originally Posted by mikkov
Yes, please. Perfect chance to avoid community backlash by discussing a policy that will affect the community before it is implemented.
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.
__________________
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!
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: | ||
|
|
2009-06-22
, 19:18
|
|
Posts: 3,105 |
Thanked: 11,088 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...
|
|
2009-06-25
, 11:18
|
|
Posts: 3,105 |
Thanked: 11,088 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
@ Mountain View (CA, USA)
|
#15
|
Originally Posted by qgil
Here we go: http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras/3rd_Party_Package_Policy
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
|
Seems fine to me but following quote doesn't make sense to me (except that it's huge work).
I don't understand why all packages would need to be rebuilt when SSU is released.
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
|
Originally Posted by mikkov
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?
I don't understand why all packages would need to be rebuilt when SSU is released.
__________________
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
| 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
|
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.
However, running "apt-get install gftp-gtk" worked fine.
/me confused.
__________________
maemo.org Bugmaster
maemo.org Bugmaster
 |
|
2009-06-29
, 13:52
|
|
Posts: 4,274 |
Thanked: 5,358 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
If it is failing because it's using = instead of >=; then it is rather stupid behaviour from the Application Manager.
gftp-common (= 2.0.18-17maemo4)
 |
|
2009-06-29
, 14:37
|
|
Posts: 2,355 |
Thanked: 5,249 times |
Joined on Jan 2009
@ Barcelona
|
#20
|
Originally Posted by qwerty12
And seems to contradict 3rd package policy as defined by qgil in wiki:
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)
So I guess this is a h-a-m bug. Or I'm misunderstanding the policy.
Last edited by javispedro; 2009-06-29 at 14:40.