On 2012-09-12 15:10, Jan Kundrát wrote:
Hi Mildred,
thanks for your patch. I'm not really familiar with 0install, so I
have a few questions:
Hi,
This is not yet very complete, it's only a first attempt.
- Where should I put that XML file? Does it matter somehow? What will
I have to do when I want to switch the URL in future?
That's somewhat a problem, but not so much.
There is an URI that represents the program and that doesn't necessarily
needs to be resolvable (like XML namespaces). It is best however if it
resolves to the feed XML file.
The feed XML file URL must resolve to the Trojita.xml file in the patch.
It contains the information about the program.
0install uses URIs like http://rox.sourceforge.net/2005/interfaces/Edit
that can be easily maintained over time. But if for some reason the URI
changes, that's not really a problem (except you'd have to tell your
users to update I think).
If you write a feed for a library, you'd need to tell the packagers that
uses your library to update as well.
- Shouldn't the <interface uri=...> be using the same URL as <feed-for
interface=...>?
Preferably, yes.
- How do I test the implementation? On my Gentoo system, there's no
`qmake-qt4`, just `qmake`. How to solve this? Please note that these
are referenced both from the README file and also from the 0install
XML file.
That's a problem.
We'd need to improve the qmake package to make the executable name
variable (that's possible but not implemented in the qmake feed I found).
If you want to test, you could just change the xml file until we can
find a better solution.
- qmake probably has a "better" approach for $INSTALL_PREFIX, I'm
pretty sure that it's supposed to be passed to the configure step
(when calling qmake), not to the `make install` thing. I might be wrong.
Yes, but I don't know qmake.
I looked at this a little bit, but found nothing conclusive.
- I don't see any reference to the source code. How does the 0install
know where to fetch the sources from? Or do I have to download the
whole tree anyway *and* after that use 0install? I kind of assumed
that the whole point of "0install" and related stuff is to be able to
"install without much hassle". If it requires an explicit XML manifest
along with complicated user actions -- which I cannot possibly debug
or help with -- it really looks strange to me. If my perception is
correct, I cannot really recommend users to follow this route.
For the moment, this feed is only able to compile using 0compile using a
checked out repository (id="."), as we don't have binary packages yet.
These binary packages could easily be built anyway.
The feed would get a new <implementation/> entry containing the URL
where the binary package could be fetched.
I'll continue to improve this,
Mildred
