Active Topics

 


Reply
Thread Tools
Posts: 3,328 | Thanked: 4,476 times | Joined on May 2011 @ Poland
#31
extras - sure. extras-testing - no idea. extras-devel should be left.
__________________
If you want to support my work, you can donate by PayPal or Flattr

Projects no longer actively developed: here
 
Saturn's Avatar
Posts: 1,648 | Thanked: 2,122 times | Joined on Mar 2007 @ UNKLE's Never Never Land
#32
IMO, Tech stuff and Council should remove not only the dangerous but all packages that require reflashing to get rid off. There should be no exception unless there is a popup that informs the user during installation. Mentioning it in the download page and description is obligatory, but clearly not enough.

And while you are at it, could you please remove also this:
http://maemo.org/packages/package_in...map/5.59BETA1/ from extras-testing and devel?
 

The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Saturn For This Useful Post:
panjgoori's Avatar
Posts: 1,239 | Thanked: 1,278 times | Joined on Aug 2011 @ Balochistan
#33
Dangerous/Risky patches/apps should not be promoted to extras-testing until they are fixed by the developer. Deleting them completely is unfair.
 
joerg_rw's Avatar
Posts: 2,222 | Thanked: 12,651 times | Joined on Mar 2010 @ SOL 3
#34
title of this thread should have been
last chance to come up with technical objections against removing *patch from extras and extras-testing
As mentioned by MT in #1, it's already been decided about that we gonna remove it if no technical objections aganst that. A general poll is not productive anymore at this time. Neither is extending the topic to anything other than *patch.

/j
__________________
Maemo Community Council member [2012-10, 2013-05, 2013-11, 2014-06 terms]
Hildon Foundation Council inaugural member.
MCe.V. foundation member

EX Hildon Foundation approved
Maemo Administration Coordinator (stepped down due to bullying 2014-04-05)
aka "techstaff" - the guys who keep your infra running - Devotion to Duty http://xkcd.com/705/

IRC(freenode): DocScrutinizer*
First USB hostmode fanatic, father of H-E-N
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to joerg_rw For This Useful Post:
Estel's Avatar
Posts: 5,028 | Thanked: 8,613 times | Joined on Mar 2011
#35
Last time I checked, general consensus was to revisit exact rules about things forbidden in packages, and giving time for developers to fix it, then starting to take action.

If you would care to read this (short) thread - it wasn't about those 2 packages, but about packages violating rules in general.

I'm also pretty sure, that Mentalist wrote exactly what he wanted to wrote, and doesn't need "correcting" to focus on witch-hunt for crapatches, only. Please, don't go deaf for Community suggestions - many wise ideas in this thread, and it would be pity to waste them, focusing *only*
__________________
N900's aluminum backcover / body replacement
-
N900's HDMI-Out
-
Camera cover MOD
-
Measure battery's real capacity on-device
-
TrueCrypt 7.1 | ereswap | bnf
-
Hardware's mods research is costly. To support my work, please consider donating. Thank You!
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Estel For This Useful Post:
Posts: 2,290 | Thanked: 4,134 times | Joined on Apr 2010 @ UK
#36
I think both topics need covering separately.
However things are getting mixed together.
__________________

Wiki Admin
sixwheeledbeast's wiki
Testing Squad Subscriber
- mcallerx - tenminutecore - FlopSwap - Qnotted - zzztop - Bander - Fight2048 -


Before posting or starting a thread please try this.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sixwheeledbeast For This Useful Post:
Posts: 1,808 | Thanked: 4,272 times | Joined on Feb 2011 @ Germany
#37
Originally Posted by Mentalist Traceur View Post
[*]One or both (I don't recall) of them violates the Debian packaging guidelines (which Maemo packages are supposed to adhere to).
That's a funny one. I'm sure Maemo itself breaks Debian packaging guidelines. Notwithstanding that, it surely breaks Unix common-sense..

I don't think we should remove packages, unless they are clearly broken (e.g. "rm -rf /" in postinst, unless this is clearly described as part of what the package provides..).

The problem here is that unstable packages (e.g. speedpatch and batterypatch) have passed extras-testing and are now considered stable, i.e. in extras.

So there are 10 people (I think it's 10) who voted positively. And that is where we have an (unsolvable) problem. You will always get 10 people to vote yes to ANYTHING.

But hey, that's an inherent problem in life, and not just in Maemo. You either give people the freedom to say "this package is stable" or you give that right to the enlightened few/one. Both approaches are wrong, but there's no third option .

Last edited by reinob; 2013-04-02 at 08:08. Reason: s/were/where/
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to reinob For This Useful Post:
Posts: 1,225 | Thanked: 1,905 times | Joined on Feb 2011 @ Quezon City, Philippines
#38
Originally Posted by reinob View Post
The problem here is that unstable packages (e.g. speedpatch and batterypatch) have passed extras-testing and are now considered stable, i.e. in extras.
According to un-scientific "testing" (lol) from TMO forum members who want a quick boost, it "works".

And technically, that qualifies it for Maemo.org extras.

I think that one solution to this problem is an "extras-labs" repository for packages that interfere with Maemo core system components.

Advertise the extras-labs repo as a place where packages could blow up your device without following directions to the letter.

If a package in -devel doesn't move to extras even if a sufficient number of users (note, that was the point of the voting system in the first place) call it stable, what's the point?
__________________
N9 PR 1.3 Open Mode + kernel-plus for Harmattan
@kenweknot, working on Glacier for Nemo.
 
Posts: 1,808 | Thanked: 4,272 times | Joined on Feb 2011 @ Germany
#39
Originally Posted by Hurrian View Post
I think that one solution to this problem is an "extras-labs" repository for packages that interfere with Maemo core system components.
I would leave things as-is: extras is for tested, stable, packages. Extras-testing for testing packages *and subsequently (after a given limit date) moving to extras to back to devel*. Extras-devel is for "may eat your babies" stuff.

Now if I write a program/package that *I* consider "stable" (by my own definition) and I want to make it available to people who know what they're doing, but not to everyone then I just make my own repository (like Ubuntu's PPA's) and then everybody's happy.

This would allow some kind of "bleeding edge" updates to SOME programs, without having to buy the whole extras-devel package.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to reinob For This Useful Post:
Posts: 2,290 | Thanked: 4,134 times | Joined on Apr 2010 @ UK
#40
Originally Posted by reinob View Post
That's a funny one. I'm sure Maemo itself breaks Debian packaging guidelines.
Not wanting to move this thread any more off-topic.
I should point out that Maemo policy must follow Debian policy unless not feasible.
Any deviations from Debian policy should be listed. Any packages that do not conform "MUST be fixed" or the policy changed to suit foo-package.

http://wiki.maemo.org/Packaging/Guid..._Debian_Policy

https://maemo.org/forrest-images/pdf/maemo-policy.pdf
__________________

Wiki Admin
sixwheeledbeast's wiki
Testing Squad Subscriber
- mcallerx - tenminutecore - FlopSwap - Qnotted - zzztop - Bander - Fight2048 -


Before posting or starting a thread please try this.
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to sixwheeledbeast For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
community, dangerous, extras, harmful, repositories


 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:46.