ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Martin Albisetti <argentina@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Colin Watson <cjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.


Correct. So if we decide to not ship -dev1/2/3/4/N in the final image,
apps developed with these frameworks will not show up for users on the
final image (which is fine, as long as developers understand what
they're doing), if we do ship them it doesn't matter how many crazy
frameworks we introduce for users and developers, users will see all
apps.

I'm not terribly comfortable with us having to have added the -dev1
framework knowing it's not what we wanted, but given the Qt 5.2
landing story, the consequences of adding it seemed manageable enough
(from my POV) that it was worth not adding more stress.

-- 
Martin