ubuntu-appstore-developers team mailing list archive

[Jamie Strandboge <jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 09/30/2013 05:58 AM, Colin Watson wrote:
> (FAO Ricardo Kirkner, although I thought this was worth a new thread.)
> 
> I've implemented the core of "fat package" support (that is,
> architecture-dependent packages that contain support for more than one
> machine architecture) in click 0.4.9, which I'm currently testing before
> landing.  After Sergio pointed out that people had been using the
> undocumented "architecture" manifest field on my advice which I'd
> forgotten about, I decided that I ought to maintain
> backward-compatibility for that.  The updated documentation is here:
> 
>   https://click.readthedocs.org/en/latest/file-format.html
> 
> The architecture elements of output file names are informational - click
> doesn't rely on them - but they will be "all" for
> architecture-independent, the architecture name for
> architecture-dependent/single-architecture, and "multi" for
> architecture-dependent/multiple-architecture.  click will of course
> reject attempts to install fat packages that don't support the running
> architecture.
> 
> Just to be explicit, here are the three cases:
> 
>   Package type     | "architecture" value | Output file name
>   -----------------+----------------------+-----------------
>   No compiled code | "all"                | NAME_VERSION_all.click
>   Single arch      | "armhf"              | NAME_VERSION_armhf.click
>   Multiple arches  | ["armhf", "i386"]    | NAME_VERSION_multi.click
> 
> Supporting this may require changes in review scripts, and perhaps on
> the server if it cares about the file names.  Anything that parses the
> "architecture" manifest entry will need to cope with the possibility
> that it will be a list rather than a string, and anything that parses
> the file name will need to cope with the architecture element being
> "multi".  I hope nobody's parsing the Architecture field in the dpkg
> control metadata - that's just there to keep dpkg happy - but it will
> also be "multi" in the fat package case.  I would assume that the store
> and the click scope will also need to be updated to check architecture
> metadata appropriately.
> 

Thanks Colin. I'll update the review scripts for this. FYI, the review scripts
do look at Architecture in the control metadata to make sure it is being used
the way it should. Based on your update, it sounds like it will be:

  Package type     | "Architecture" value in dpkg control
  -----------------+-------------------------------------
  No compiled code | "all"
  Single arch      | "armhf"
  Multiple arches  | "multi"


-- 
Jamie Strandboge                 http://www.ubuntu.com/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature