ext Dave Neary <[email protected]> writes:

> Since many packages include shell scripts for pre- or post-inst
> operations, or even for run-time set-up, it seems reasonable to define
> some kind of subset of commands and some version of a standard shell.
> Without going overboard, of course.

Yes, and the spec generally does (will do) this by listing concrete
packages in Appendix A, if I understand things right.

For example, it will likely list "coreutils" in Appendix A, and then you
look at the MeeGO release that you are targetting and that tells you
which version of coreutils will be in any MeeGo product that claims
compatibility with that MeeGo release.

This isn't very pure, since it allows people to get away with coreutils
specific code which reduces the portability of their code to other
platforms than MeeGo, but that's their problem, not ours, as long as our
coreutils are reasonably POSIXY and we don't force them to be coreutils
specific.

It also means that we are tied to coreutils for at least one major
version of MeeGo, of course, but that's fine IMO.

And to conclude the argument: If we do this for coreutils, we can just
as well do it for bash.  I don't see a reason to single out the shell,
or for that matter, other language run-times.

> Similarly for scripting languages, if you're writing a Python app it's
> important to know that Python 2.7.x won't be on any MeeGo device.

Do you mean "won't be on _all_ MeeGo devices"?  It should be totally
feasible in general to package extra dependencies of your applications
for MeeGo.

Packaging Python 2.7 might be a bit excessive just for a tea timer, but
there shouldn't be anything that prevents it in principle.
_______________________________________________
MeeGo-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev

Reply via email to