ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Colin Watson <cjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:48:38PM -0500, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> 1. we are going to force everyone to rebuild with ubuntu-sdk-14.04-dev1 (I
> thought we were going to use ubuntu-sdk-14.04-qml-dev1,
> ubuntu-sdk-14.04-html-dev1 and ubuntu-sdk-14.04-papi-dev1 anyway...) and then
> again with ubuntu-sdk-14.04-qml|html|papi in a few weeks. This seems less than
> ideal.

Well, firstly, it's rubbish to have missed the splitting; we should get
the proper frameworks in as soon as you and I are both actually at work.
If I'd been properly around when we'd been doing this I'd have noticed
in time ...

But secondly, there's absolutely no reason why we should drop -dev1
frameworks from the released image if their ABI hasn't been broken.
I've made this point before and I think Click/Frameworks encapsulates
it.  So there's no reason app authors would have to rebuild for that.

> 2. we are asking people to upload apps to the store with a framework
> (or qt5.2 for that matter) that doesn't yet exist on a promoted image.

My understanding is that the store will only return results to clients
that match frameworks they have.

> In theory, they can test the packaging changes by using
> --force-missing-framework with click install, but does pkcon
> install-local support that?

No.

> (Aside: what will libclick do for base framework and base version if
> the framework is missing?)

The framework doesn't exist so you'll never get as far as being able to
query it.  How that's handled depends on how click-apparmor starts using
libclick; click itself doesn't use the
click_framework_get_base_{name,version} functions.

-- 
Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx]