On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 10:37 -0800, ext Aaron Levinson wrote: > On Mon, 27 Nov 2006, Marius Gedminas wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 08:56:49AM -0800, Aaron Levinson wrote: > > > But my main question is, if we build our package with the scirocco/2.1 > > > SDK, in which distribution on the extras repository should we place the > > > package, mistral or scirocco? Considering that the scirocco distribution > > > is not published, I would guess the mistral distribution is correct, but > > > will packages built with the 2.1 SDK work on an IT2006 mistral platform? > > > > I have found at least one package that does not work on mistral > > (2006.1): NFlick 0.3.0 requires hildon-libs0 >= 0.12.22-1, but mistral > > has only 0.12.20-1. I assume it was build on scirocco. > > > > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/nflick/browse_thread/thread/5b60c21022270e2a
Yes, NFlick was compiled on scirocco and the application manager will
not allow it to be installed on mistral. The problem here comes from the
${shlibs:Depends} expansion in the package control file.
Also, it's true that package doesn't "need" the new hildon-libs version.
There were not any API-breaking changes in hildon-libs happening.
Speaking more globally, we don't yet have any policies here. According
to the SDK team, we're not supposed to maintain any API compatibility
between releases. This is, however, something that has been "silently
assumed" rather than "consciously decided".
Hopefully the API rolling process will become more clear in future, but
for now please bear with us.
--
MDK
>
> It is likely that this package doesn't actually "need" the newer version
> of hildon-libs, given that there were no changes to the APIs exported by
> hildon-libs according to the 2.1 release notes. As far as I can tell, the
> main difference between 2.1 and 2.0, from a programming perspective, is
> the addition of the libosso-abook APIs (the use of which might require an
> IT2006 2.1 installation) and perhaps things having to do with implementing
> a custom connection manager (which is a new document for 2.1). There is
> also an oss-dsp-modules-su-18-maemo package, but I'm not sure if this
> introduces new programming facilities.
>
> But, it would be nice to get some confirmation from someone at Nokia
> regarding this and whether or not packages built with the 2.1 SDK are
> compatible with 2.0 installations (as a general rule).
>
> Aaron
>
> _______________________________________________
> maemo-developers mailing list
> maemo-developers@maemo.org
> https://maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
