Hallo!
> I still think the "assume it works unless people complain" would be the best
> method, but if your rating app could also track dependencies that would
I'm not against it personally, it is Nokia that stress the Quality aspect. I
can understand this, since the Extras Repository is something "offcial". In
understand Quill in that way, there should not be unstable software in it.
Of cozrse the more stability check you can to to the package and the softwar
ebefore and automatically, the more you can try to just let them in and the
less you need rating.
> eliminate one of my points against this type of approach (that libraries may
> get
> very few positive votes as people don't use them directly so don't know they
> are
> being used).
You mean: I have installed "CoolApp" and it worked, and since "CoolApp" uses
"CoolLib", "CoolLib" should automatically be rated, too? I havn't planed
that for an initial release. I currently show all packages that are in the
group user/* (and by styleguide AFAIK that should not be a library) and
where the user has not done any rating for the current version. Then I
blindy try to push this rating into the (guessed from package name) project
page.
This could work for dependent libraries, too. But the library should be in
the application catalog (I havn't seen any).
Also it would be nice, if we could agree on some package header for the
application page/name in the package. This way I do not need to blindly push
data on some possibly non-existing web page.
Another questoion (I already asked): Can/Should a user rerate an
application, if there is a newer version (that would suggest different
rating)?
--
Gruß...
Tim.
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
