On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Jamie Strandboge <ja...@canonical.com>wrote:
> On 09/24/2013 06:42 PM, Colin Watson wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 06:21:20PM -0300, Martin Albisetti wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Ricardo Kirkner > >> <ricardo.kirk...@canonical.com> wrote: > > ... > > > One thing I need to point out: I have not yet defined how this is going > > to work in click, and I am going to need to. If anyone defines things > > about the click format (including non-"x-"-prefixed manifest entries) in > > other packages that really ought to be nailed down in click first, I'm > > going to be rather unimpressed. At least send me a merge proposal if > > you do that ... > > > > The main difficulties are: > > > > * somebody cowboyed an "architecture" key into lots of existing click > > packages' manifests without making sure it was an accepted part of > > the file-format spec first (it still isn't, largely because I'm > > anticipating this problem), and it's probably going to have to change > > to be at least potentially a list, or some such > > Not that it really matters, but I'm not sure I would characterize what > happened > as cowboying in the architecture key. I appreciate the difficulties this > produces and your point of view, but I don't think the current situation is > insurmountable-- the architecture field isn't required by anything I don't > think > (Martin, please correct me) and I think only a handful of existing apps in > the > appstore even have it defined. I actually asked about the architecture > field > when I was writing the click review tools early on because architecture > was not > in the file-format spec and I observed a few packages had it defined, and > the > tools were expressing that as an error. I forget who I talked to (I > believe you > were on holiday at the time), but I was told that putting armhf in the > architecture field of the click manifest was ok for now and that we would > just > adjust as needed later. I knew fat packages weren't defined yet, but > figured > based on this answer that, like you say later in this thread, it would > probably > be 'all', 'fat' or something else. Around that time, I filed a bug[1] > describing > the current situation along with the answer I received, but was clear that > the > contents of architecture are still TBD. > The answer to that is easy, I told Jamie about the arch entry and it was based on this conversation: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2013/06/28/%23ubuntu-devel.html#t14:37
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-appstore-developers Post to : ubuntu-appstore-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-appstore-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
