ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Alexander Sack <asac@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Alejandro J. Cura
<alejandro.cura@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Alexander Sack <asac@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Colin Watson <cjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:21:00PM +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
>>>> How do we find and define what the "sane" combinations are?
>>>
>>> That's trivial - we can start by saying that you only get to use
>>> combinations with the same prefix, e.g. "ubuntu-sdk-14.04*".  Those will
>>> presumably just be broken down from what might previously have been
>>> declared as "ubuntu-sdk-14.04", so are clearly a sane combination.
>>>
>>> I don't think any of this should block click 0.4.14.  What frameworks
>>> you want to declare is up to you(r team); if you want to just declare
>>> "ubuntu-sdk-14.04" then that's fine by me and click will behave as
>>> before.   I just want to have the support in place so that if and when
>>> you need this (I predict it's "when", since this is something I've
>>> already been asked for several times) then I don't have to scramble to
>>> enable it in the package manager.
>>
>> Sounds fine if the "old" way is still supported, let's just be careful
>> with opening up these option for adoption by the app devs.
>>
>> Q: does the click package manager also take care of disabling apps
>> that are incompatible after you get an image update that stops
>> shipping a specific framework version?
>
> Also, should the system updater warn before uninstalling frameworks?
> Something like: "This update will break the following apps:..."
> I know it would be an uncommon use case, but I can imagine this will
> irate some users otherwise.

I think this is a good idea that beuno should take into consideration
when exploring the userstories related to this. CCed him so he doesn't
miss... :)

>
> cheers,
> --
> alecu