ubuntu-appstore-developers team mailing list archive

[Ricardo Kirkner <ricardo.kirkner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Sergio Schvezov <
sergio.schvezov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Ricardo Kirkner <
> ricardo.kirkner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm working on adding support for exposing supported architectures for
>> the click packages. This work will include:
>>
>> - allow developer to specify supported architecture for binary file
>> during upload (later on, the architecture will be extracted from the click
>> package itself)
>> - expose supported architectures for click package so that the click
>> index can filter by architecture easily
>>
>> I am making a few assumptions and I have one question for which I'd like
>> to hear your thoughts.
>>
>> Assumptions
>> - a click package can support one of the following architectures: armhf,
>> amd64, i386 or all (meaning a generic app that works on all architectures)
>>
>
> Are we going to limit the infra to those 4 options? There is no user use
> of arm64 today, but who knows...
>

There are several ways in which we can enable more architectures. Which one
we choose depends on how often the list of valid architectures is going to
change. If we can come up with a list of currently valid architectures, we
can document that in the wiki and start off that list.


>
>
>> - a click app can support multiple applications by means of multiple
>> click packages (one for each supported architecture)
>> - supported architectures is a dynamic feature of the click app; it will
>> depend on the available uploaded binaries at any given time (and the
>> architectures they've been uploaded for)
>> - the binary filename will include the architecture  (eg,
>> namespace.appname_version_arch.click)
>>
>
> If I specify arch, I get something like:
>  com.ubuntu.ubuntu-filemanager_0.1.1_armhf.click<http://10.97.2.10:8080/view/click/job/filemanager-app-click/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/com.ubuntu.ubuntu-filemanager_0.1.1_armhf.click>
>

correct


>
> - we will now have to allow uploading a new click package for an already
>> uploaded version, as long as it's for a new architecture
>>
>> Question
>> - in the case of multi-arch package, is it ok that we name the file using
>> _all.click ? Is that the current convention?
>>
>
> Yes, but I've seen apps with 'unknown', not sure where those come from or
> how they are built. Here's the output from not specifying arch in the
> manifest
> com.ubuntu.dropping-letters_0.1.2.2_all.click<http://10.97.2.10:8080/view/click/job/dropping-letters-click/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/com.ubuntu.dropping-letters_0.1.2.2_all.click>
>
>
the 'unknown' arch is currently hardcoded in MyApps, and is what I'm going
to change. It looks like using 'all' for the generic arch is consistent
then.


> If this is how it's the way forward I'll leave to Colin.
>

I'll move forward with this unless there is any objection.

thanks!