On Sunday 19 September 2010 08:55:13 Carsten Munk wrote: > 2010/9/19 Graham Cobb <[email protected]>: > > Personally I don't think Staging is needed as part of the Compliance > > definition (it might be needed for other reasons). The rule should be: > > an app can depend on any other package which is maintained by the same > > entity (person/company/project team/whatever) and which is available from > > the same repository. > > Can we test this rule properly? Staging would have to be part of > compliance for the reason that we can't assume a MeeGo compliant app > would install otherwise.
Sure we can test it: the candidate submits all the source packages which are required for the app -- the testing script can check they all have the same maintainer and that (between them) they satisfy the dependencies. It can even build them and use them to install the candidate app on a test system if you want. This can even be extended to non-free packages (the candidate can have the choice of submitting source or binary packages or any combination). Actually, I think it is your proposal which can't be tested: non-free apps will not submit any source packages to the tester so you don't know if they are built from the same source package (unless you choose to just believe the information in the binary package). Of course, we can't test the "available from the same repo" bit, but that is no different with your proposal of having the apps built from the same source package. App-stores will not take source packages as submissions, they will take binary packages (as many apps will not be OSS) -- it is up to the app-store to determine that all the necessary dependencies have been submitted before letting the app go live. Graham _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
