ubuntu-appstore-developers team mailing list archive

[Sergio Schvezov <sergio.schvezov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Jamie Strandboge <jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> On 09/24/2013 06:42 PM, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 06:21:20PM -0300, Martin Albisetti wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Ricardo Kirkner
> >> <ricardo.kirkner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > One thing I need to point out: I have not yet defined how this is going
> > to work in click, and I am going to need to.  If anyone defines things
> > about the click format (including non-"x-"-prefixed manifest entries) in
> > other packages that really ought to be nailed down in click first, I'm
> > going to be rather unimpressed.  At least send me a merge proposal if
> > you do that ...
> >
> > The main difficulties are:
> >
> >  * somebody cowboyed an "architecture" key into lots of existing click
> >    packages' manifests without making sure it was an accepted part of
> >    the file-format spec first (it still isn't, largely because I'm
> >    anticipating this problem), and it's probably going to have to change
> >    to be at least potentially a list, or some such
>
> Not that it really matters, but I'm not sure I would characterize what
> happened
> as cowboying in the architecture key. I appreciate the difficulties this
> produces and your point of view, but I don't think the current situation is
> insurmountable-- the architecture field isn't required by anything I don't
> think
> (Martin, please correct me) and I think only a handful of existing apps in
> the
> appstore even have it defined. I actually asked about the architecture
> field
> when I was writing the click review tools early on because architecture
> was not
> in the file-format spec and I observed a few packages had it defined, and
> the
> tools were expressing that as an error. I forget who I talked to (I
> believe you
> were on holiday at the time), but I was told that putting armhf in the
> architecture field of the click manifest was ok for now and that we would
> just
> adjust as needed later. I knew fat packages weren't defined yet, but
> figured
> based on this answer that, like you say later in this thread, it would
> probably
> be 'all', 'fat' or something else. Around that time, I filed a bug[1]
> describing
> the current situation along with the answer I received, but was clear that
> the
> contents of architecture are still TBD.
>

The answer to that is easy, I told Jamie about the arch entry and it was
based on this conversation:
http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2013/06/28/%23ubuntu-devel.html#t14:37