Active Topics
-
Error after installing Leste on sdcard (15)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Arno_11 - 2 hrs, 44 mins ago -
Maemo 20th Anniversary (4)
to Brainstorm by teroyk - 1 day, 2 hrs ago -
Nokia Booklet 3G (RX-75) Drivers (64)
to Alternatives by teroyk - 1 day, 2 hrs ago -
Porting apps to Leste (46)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 3 days, 6 hrs ago - more...
|
2009-12-13
, 17:25
|
|
Posts: 519 |
Thanked: 366 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ North Carolina (Formerly Denmark and Iceland)
|
#22
|
Originally Posted by attila77
Maybe we should change that and make it a requirement that apps be optified before being moved from devel to testing.
@Dexter1759:
Not really. There is no testing to get into testingVersions in testing are identical to devel, with the difference of the author asking for tester feedback. Now, this *should* mean a more polished package (with potential to eventually enter Extras proper), but there are no guarantees - it's testing exactly to reveal problems. Statistically you will run into less problems than you would in -devel, but that's about it.
I can also foresee that things could go wrong when apps are being optified for final release so it makes the most sense to have that all finished when they enter testing. Then you know you are testing what the goal is to release eventually.
I´m willing to test a lot of stuff, but as relatively new to this world I really do not want the root directory to fill up, so unless it is "optified" I´m not sure I want to venture in there. Basically I´m willing to test if the consequences of failure are likely to be fixable in less than 3 hours.
If this would end up taking me a day or two to fix, I´d rather stay away. I need the device to function so the view is not worth the climb so to speak if its likely to be down for days.
Last edited by olighak; 2009-12-13 at 17:30.
| The Following User Says Thank You to olighak For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2009-12-13
, 17:34
|
|
Posts: 2,535 |
Thanked: 6,681 times |
Joined on Mar 2008
@ UK
|
#23
|
The plan is to have the autobuilder do the optification (unless a package does it itself, or specifically requests not to). However, this plan is still in the early stages.
However, if most of your day-to-day apps are in Extras (or have versions of them there), the testing of a package or two isn't going to fill up your rootfs. df -h / in X Terminal will help you keep an eye on it.
However, if most of your day-to-day apps are in Extras (or have versions of them there), the testing of a package or two isn't going to fill up your rootfs. df -h / in X Terminal will help you keep an eye on it.
__________________
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
|
|
2009-12-13
, 17:57
|
|
Posts: 30 |
Thanked: 20 times |
Joined on Aug 2009
@ Lincolnshire, UK
|
#24
|
I too am new to the world of maemo, and linux as a whole if i'm honest. But saying that, i'd still like to help with testing the "safer" apps in -testing. Would it be safe to assume that the likes of Xournal, with it just being an update thats in -testing rather than a whole new app, would be passed the point of doing any real damage?
Thanks for any advice.
Thanks for any advice.
|
|
2009-12-13
, 19:51
|
|
Posts: 3,319 |
Thanked: 5,610 times |
Joined on Aug 2008
@ Finland
|
#25
|
Yes, an update (especially if it's not a major version update) is far less likely to cause trouble. Again, no guarantees. Also, you can see the karma status of the testing package. If you're not one of the brave hacker kind, you might want to wait until the package accumulates a little karma and check on the comments of other testers. If it has not bombed on 5 other installs, it's less likely (but again, not impossible) that it will bomb on your install.
Your biggest danger is actually pulling in something as a dependency (say, that updated Xournal depends on a newer version of a library), and that dependency causing trouble with already installed packages.
So, testing is not that seven-headed monster that requires full-body-hacker-plating, but make a backup before you enable it just for peace of mind, turn it off after you installed the app you want to check, and don't curse developers (too loud) if (however (un)likely) something goes wrong - we're human, too
Your biggest danger is actually pulling in something as a dependency (say, that updated Xournal depends on a newer version of a library), and that dependency causing trouble with already installed packages.
So, testing is not that seven-headed monster that requires full-body-hacker-plating, but make a backup before you enable it just for peace of mind, turn it off after you installed the app you want to check, and don't curse developers (too loud) if (however (un)likely) something goes wrong - we're human, too
__________________
Blogging about mobile linux - The Penguin Moves!
Maintainer of PyQt (see introduction and docs), AppWatch, QuickBrownFox, etc
Blogging about mobile linux - The Penguin Moves!
Maintainer of PyQt (see introduction and docs), AppWatch, QuickBrownFox, etc
| The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to attila77 For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2009-12-13
, 20:07
|
|
Posts: 71 |
Thanked: 54 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#26
|
Originally Posted by olighak
Optification is a requirement for moving from extras-testing to extras. So extras-testing is a stage where it's supposed to be optified and people get a chance to look at it and say "oh yes, it is optified" or not.
Maybe we should change that and make it a requirement that apps be optified before being moved from devel to testing.
Originally Posted by olighak
You can look at the QA queue in extras-testing and see that some apps are likely slightly safer than others. If an app already has a fairly positive score and you read the QA comments and there's no mention of root partition terror for example or similarly cataclysmic events, you should feel somewhat safer testing it yourself, and adding your comment and vote.
I´m willing to test a lot of stuff, but as relatively new to this world I really do not want the root directory to fill up, so unless it is "optified" I´m not sure I want to venture in there. Basically I´m willing to test if the consequences of failure are likely to be fixable in less than 3 hours.
If this would end up taking me a day or two to fix, I´d rather stay away. I need the device to function so the view is not worth the climb so to speak if its likely to be down for days.
Make sure you have the QA checklist for reference though. And the extras-testing page is good to read.
__________________
$HOME - On special days, this sig will contain a hidden Andalusian Video Snail. Today is not such a day.
$HOME - On special days, this sig will contain a hidden Andalusian Video Snail. Today is not such a day.
 |
|
2009-12-13
, 21:15
|
|
Posts: 4,708 |
Thanked: 4,649 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
@ Bulgaria
|
#27
|
I would rather prefer the author to make sure the app is optified before pushing it to extras-testing, because a big un-optified package may scare away a lot of testers which are probably not developers. Come on, is it really that hard to put a single line in your rules file just before building the package?
__________________
Technically, there are three determinate states the cat could be in: Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Technically, there are three determinate states the cat could be in: Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
|
|
2009-12-13
, 22:33
|
|
Posts: 2,535 |
Thanked: 6,681 times |
Joined on Mar 2008
@ UK
|
#28
|
Originally Posted by Bundyo
Absolutely. Any developer who pushes a package to -testing without having skimmed the QA guidelines and made their best efforts to meet them is wasting everyone's time.
I would rather prefer the author to make sure the app is optified before pushing it to extras-testing, because a big un-optified package may scare away a lot of testers which are probably not developers. Come on, is it really that hard to put a single line in your rules file just before building the package?
However, -testing will contain stuff which does violate the QA rules (e.g. eat your battery); if it didn't, we could skip it altogether ;-)
__________________
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
 |
|
2009-12-14
, 12:31
|
|
Posts: 276 |
Thanked: 224 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Frankfurt, Germany
|
#29
|
I hope this is the right topic, maybe you can explain! Why is the partitioning not able to handle normal package installations? I want to use debian repositories on my N900:
Is it possible, to use the internal 2GB memory in the N900 as root partition? If not, is it possible to move /usr to this partition and symlink (moving the files needed for boot to another directory)? Or is there a possibility to install .deb-files to the 2GB-partition and symlink the files from the 256MB-partition?
There are some apps running really good out of easy debian console with maemo window manager, for example inkscape, pcmanfm (a really good filemanager) and audacity (still without sound but working). I want to try kile and therefore i need more space for the /usr-directory in the root-partition!
What is the best solution to solve the limitations of the root-partition (i don't want to use the biggest partition for system)?
Is it possible, to use the internal 2GB memory in the N900 as root partition? If not, is it possible to move /usr to this partition and symlink (moving the files needed for boot to another directory)? Or is there a possibility to install .deb-files to the 2GB-partition and symlink the files from the 256MB-partition?
There are some apps running really good out of easy debian console with maemo window manager, for example inkscape, pcmanfm (a really good filemanager) and audacity (still without sound but working). I want to try kile and therefore i need more space for the /usr-directory in the root-partition!
What is the best solution to solve the limitations of the root-partition (i don't want to use the biggest partition for system)?
 |
|
2009-12-18
, 23:16
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#30
|
I agree with your thoughts Attila and in fact I had been thinking of something...
Based on the success of Maemo Greeters, I was thinking the idea might succeed at expanding to include bug reporting, app testing, etc. Maybe we come up with fitting "titles" (Bug Hunter? Test Fiend?), copy the format of Maemo Greeters and cultivate the sort of voluntary teams you're looking for. As the Greeters program showed, some members here want to be part of the experience rather than just app consumers.
Regardless of what develops, though, I support you as QA Master. I think you'd be perfect.
Based on the success of Maemo Greeters, I was thinking the idea might succeed at expanding to include bug reporting, app testing, etc. Maybe we come up with fitting "titles" (Bug Hunter? Test Fiend?), copy the format of Maemo Greeters and cultivate the sort of voluntary teams you're looking for. As the Greeters program showed, some members here want to be part of the experience rather than just app consumers.
Regardless of what develops, though, I support you as QA Master. I think you'd be perfect.
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
| The Following User Says Thank You to Texrat For This Useful Post: | ||
So for now if a number of people are saying something such as the msn plugin is fine to use. Then would it be ok to add testing install the app then remove testing?