Active Topics

 


Page 7 of 11 « First 56 7 89 Last »
Reply
Thread Tools
X-Fade is offline X-Fade
2009-08-18 , 17:54
Posts: 152 | Thanked: 620 times | Joined on Mar 2008 @ Netherlands
#61
Originally Posted by lma View Post
I'd still like this particular rule relaxed for security updates, assuming adequate testing has been done of course. It doesn't seem appropriate to hold those back for arbitrary reasons and let users still go on using the vulnerable versions in the meantime.
Security updates should be handled at a case by case basis. There should be a way to fast-track a security update, but only through contact with some of the repository admins.

I want to add a simple 'promotion reason' selectbox + comment field for promotions, so we can accommodate for security updates there as well.
__________________
http://maemo.org/profile/view/xfade/ - maemo.org webmaster Apps.formeego.org (Apps for N9)
 

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to X-Fade For This Useful Post:
mikkov is offline mikkov
2009-08-18 , 23:29
Posts: 1,208 | Thanked: 1,028 times | Joined on Oct 2007
#62
From http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras-testing
Maemian/Minimae checks after builds

# Make sure the name of the binary package that gets built is the same as the package name. i.e. a package called foo should build a binary called foo, not bar.
If this restriction is about that the source package name and resulting binary package name have to be the same, it's not going to work.

There are numerous libraries where source package names and binary package names are not the same (boost and sdlgfx come to my mind first). Many source package also produces multiple binary packages. Also for some applications it's natural to use separate name from source package name, gnome-games source produces aisleriot binary in diablo.
 

The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to mikkov For This Useful Post:
X-Fade is offline X-Fade
2009-08-19 , 06:20
Posts: 152 | Thanked: 620 times | Joined on Mar 2008 @ Netherlands
#63
Originally Posted by mikkov View Post
From http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras-testing


If this restriction is about that the source package name and resulting binary package name have to be the same, it's not going to work.

There are numerous libraries where source package names and binary package names are not the same (boost and sdlgfx come to my mind first). Many source package also produces multiple binary packages. Also for some applications it's natural to use separate name from source package name, gnome-games source produces aisleriot binary in diablo.
I agree with you, multiple resulting packages in a source package is pretty common. e2fsprogs is another one, which is a pretty standard package?

Let's discuss this with Jeremiah, who is implementing these checks.
__________________
http://maemo.org/profile/view/xfade/ - maemo.org webmaster Apps.formeego.org (Apps for N9)
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to X-Fade For This Useful Post:
jeremiah's Avatar
jeremiah is offline jeremiah
2009-08-19 , 14:01
Posts: 170 | Thanked: 261 times | Joined on Feb 2009 @ Gothenburg, Sweden
#64
Originally Posted by andy80 View Post
I've read that dependencies in maemo 5 are a very big headache... I think we'll have lot of problems if something doesn't change
Can you be more specific about the headache? Debian's dependency handling is one of the reasons the distribution has been so successful and this is the model Maemo uses.

What exactly have you read?
 
jeremiah's Avatar
jeremiah is offline jeremiah
2009-08-19 , 14:19
Posts: 170 | Thanked: 261 times | Joined on Feb 2009 @ Gothenburg, Sweden
#65
Originally Posted by mikkov View Post
From http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras-testing

There are numerous libraries where source package names and binary package names are not the same (boost and sdlgfx come to my mind first).

Many source package also produces multiple binary packages. Also for some applications it's natural to use separate name from source package name, gnome-games source produces aisleriot binary in diablo.
Virtual packages are not a problem, like Gnome-Games. What is a problem is if you called your application "frog" and you called your package "cupcake-2.0". This used to be a violation of debian packaging policy which said you needed to include at least part of the name of your package. For example sdl might build only libsdl. I think this package should be called libsdl since that is the binary it builds (even if it builds libsdl-dev, libsdl-doc, etc.) Otherwise, it is hard for users to know what to install. This is why for example all the perl packages in debian are obliged to have the name libfoo-bar-perl; so that the user can easily find the package name based on the upstream name. Otherwise, how do I know that libsdl is built by sdl? For the average user, that might not be obvious.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jeremiah For This Useful Post:
mikkov is offline mikkov
2009-08-19 , 14:51
Posts: 1,208 | Thanked: 1,028 times | Joined on Oct 2007
#66
Originally Posted by jeremiah View Post
Virtual packages are not a problem, like Gnome-Games. What is a problem is if you called your application "frog" and you called your package "cupcake-2.0". This used to be a violation of debian packaging policy which said you needed to include at least part of the name of your package.
Are you sure about the debian policy? Source package e2fsprogs builds to e2fsck-static, libcomerr2, comerr-dev, libss2, ss-dev, libuuid1, uuid-runtime, libuuid1-udeb, uuid-dev, libblkid1, libblkid1-udeb, libblkid-dev, e2fsprogs-udeb, e2fslibs, e2fslibs-dev, e2fsprogs, e2fsprogs-dbg, uuid-runtime-dbg, e2fslibs-dbg, libcomerr2-dbg, libss2-dbg, libblkid1-dbg, libuuid1-dbg and these are not virtual packages.

General users who are using application manager have never heard about source packages, so they are not a concern here. For the rest 'apt-get source libss2-dbg' downloads correct source just fine.

But I do agree that package naming should be consistent and reasonable. I just don't think that putting too strict automatic checks is a good idea.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to mikkov For This Useful Post:
X-Fade is offline X-Fade
2009-08-24 , 13:19
Posts: 152 | Thanked: 620 times | Joined on Mar 2008 @ Netherlands
#67
All packages that had been queued have now been promoted to extras-testing.

Can people with access to Fremantle compatible devices try these applications and vote/leave comments?

Please ping me when there are any dependency issues, because they should all be catched by now.
__________________
http://maemo.org/profile/view/xfade/ - maemo.org webmaster Apps.formeego.org (Apps for N9)
 
jeremiah's Avatar
jeremiah is offline jeremiah
2009-08-24 , 13:31
Posts: 170 | Thanked: 261 times | Joined on Feb 2009 @ Gothenburg, Sweden
#68
Originally Posted by mikkov View Post
Are you sure about the debian policy? Source package e2fsprogs builds to e2fsck-static, libcomerr2, comerr-dev, libss2, ss-dev, libuuid1, uuid-runtime, libuuid1-udeb, uuid-dev, libblkid1, libblkid1-udeb, libblkid-dev, e2fsprogs-udeb, e2fslibs, e2fslibs-dev, e2fsprogs, e2fsprogs-dbg, uuid-runtime-dbg, e2fslibs-dbg, libcomerr2-dbg, libss2-dbg, libblkid1-dbg, libuuid1-dbg and these are not virtual packages.

General users who are using application manager have never heard about source packages, so they are not a concern here. For the rest 'apt-get source libss2-dbg' downloads correct source just fine.

But I do agree that package naming should be consistent and reasonable. I just don't think that putting too strict automatic checks is a good idea.
You're definitely right, and any check a QA script might do would be very light, it wouldn't block an upload for example. The debian policy has been modified recently to be more flexible but I think users would benefit from "consistent and reasonable' naming practices.
Last edited by jeremiah; 2009-08-24 at 13:33.
 
qgil's Avatar
qgil is offline qgil
2009-08-24 , 13:43
Posts: 3,105 | Thanked: 11,088 times | Joined on Jul 2007 @ Mountain View (CA, USA)
#69
Ok, I will pass the message to the Maemo team. I have moved from -devel to -testing myself and I will put my community time helping those getting ready for Extras.
__________________
http://maemo.org/profile/view/qgil/ + http://qt-project.org
 
conny is offline conny
2009-08-26 , 11:12
Posts: 654 | Thanked: 664 times | Joined on Feb 2009 @ Germany
#70
Yesterday (around 20 hours ago) I promoted Conboy 0.5.3 to extras-testing. Since then nothing happened. So I´m now unsure whether or not I made a mistake. Do I first have to promote all the dependencies or are they automatically promoted?

In addition to the usual stuff I need libjson-glib-1.0-0 and liboauth0. Both were uploaded (by me) to extras-devel.

Thanks!
Conny
 
Reply
Page 7 of 11 « First 56 7 89 Last »

Tags
extras-testing

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:34.

Contact Us - Home - Archive - Top