ubuntu-appstore-developers team mailing list archive

[Colin Watson <cjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 03:19:46PM +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Colin Watson <cjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Happy to do so once somebody tells me what rules we want to apply. :-)
> 
> I think a "conservative" rule to start off with might be:
> 
>  1. requiring ubuntu-sdk-libs-YY.MM is valid
>  2. requiring exactly ONE ubuntu-sdk-libs-YY.MM-SUBFRAMEWORK is valid
>  3. everything else is not valid.
> 
> We can later be more liberal and allow more funky combinations once we
> see a real need for it.
> 
> Sounds good?

Not really - I don't think we need to be as conservative as this (we
could easily allow any matching ubuntu-sdk-YY.MM*), and I would prefer
to trust our review processes to ensure that our single monolithic
framework is split in a sensible way and not made excessively
fine-grained.  However, I also want to get on with other things rather
than getting bogged down in a long debate about this, so I've just
committed this:

  * build: Enforce only a single framework declaration for now, by request.

... which effectively ensures that things are no different from before
from the perspective of app authors, but if we want to experiment with
other options then "click install" won't get in the way.  You can get
back to me if you want to adjust this policy.

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx]