On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 15:21, Graham Cobb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> However, will we have issues with version numbers? If we auto resubmit
>> them, should we ensure that each package is resubmitted with a new
>> version number? If so, a suffix of "-20100415" would be sufficient?
>
> Although I am generally against modifying developer's packages, I
> agree that this is the most pragmatic solution. Anyone who doesn't
> like it can submit a newer version of the package.
The other solution, which Niels has suggested, is just replacing the
updated packages. Since most people haven't been able to install them,
this is a quick win (no real redefinition of what the version *is*).
We could then approach it as:
1) Email all developers you have successfully built packages
since 2010-03-24 outlining them of the situation and the
actions about to be taken. (Preferably linking to the
maemo.org/packages/ pages for the packages they've uploaded)
2) Swap in the rebuilt versions, with the same version number,
from the test/experimental/staging area Niels built:
https://garage.maemo.org/builder/.fremantletest/__packages__/
3) Re-index the repo.
4) Resolve https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9752
> By the way, has the change been well tested? With real packages
> built with the modified SDK and installed on all existing firmware
> releases? We don't want to do all this and discover it doesn't
> fix the problem.
Indeed. I'm not aware of any extensive testing apart from a few
packages on my PR1.1.1 device. Javier/Niels?
Cheers,
Andrew
--
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:[email protected] | http://www.bleb.org/
Maemo Community Council chair
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
