Re: maemo-release
ext Dave Neary wrote: > Hi, > > Quim Gil wrote: >> We are asking the renaming of pure end user apps called "Maemo >> Something" in order to avoid confusion of what is official and what is not. > > Just to be clear, when you say "what is official", what do you mean? A piece of software that Nokia is responsible of, and therefore customers can complain to Nokia about. > > Is this applications shipped with the device by default? Or applications > created by Nokia? Or applications in the "Nokia applications" repository? > > I'd like to think that eventually, applications written by anyone in the > community can become "official" and be installed by default in future > Maemo devices, if they prove themselves capable. > > Cheers, > Dave. > > (For the rest, I agree - if we're not talking about user-targetted apps, > the impact is small - I just want to clarify the meaning of the > often-used word "official") > -- Quim Gil open source advocate Maemo Devices @ Nokia ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: maemo-release
Andrew Flegg wrote: > That still seems to be an outstanding question in my mind; what does > "maemo-release" do that "maemo-version" doesn't? If it is something > useful, is it going to be changed to return the right version numbers? I also wonder what is the result. Gabriel, can you let us know what are your plans? IMO maemo-version should stay, old SDK versions should stay too to prevent confusion (i.e. gregale being 2.2 etc.) and the http://wiki.maemo.org/Maemo-releases or other documentation should stay too but use maemo-version instead. Someone helped me to discover maemo-version only recently and until now I planned only to read /etc/maemo_version in my debian/rules. The idea about using it in Build-Depends was new to me, thanks for that. Frantisek ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: maemo-release
Hi, Quim Gil wrote: > We are asking the renaming of pure end user apps called "Maemo > Something" in order to avoid confusion of what is official and what is not. Just to be clear, when you say "what is official", what do you mean? Is this applications shipped with the device by default? Or applications created by Nokia? Or applications in the "Nokia applications" repository? I'd like to think that eventually, applications written by anyone in the community can become "official" and be installed by default in future Maemo devices, if they prove themselves capable. Cheers, Dave. (For the rest, I agree - if we're not talking about user-targetted apps, the impact is small - I just want to clarify the meaning of the often-used word "official") -- maemo.org docsmaster Email: dne...@maemo.org Jabber: bo...@jabber.org ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: maemo-release
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 06:11, Quim Gil wrote: > > [...] If the utilities are really useful [...] That still seems to be an outstanding question in my mind; what does "maemo-release" do that "maemo-version" doesn't? If it is something useful, is it going to be changed to return the right version numbers? Cheers, Andrew -- Andrew Flegg -- mailto:and...@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org/ ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: maemo-release
ext Jeremiah Foster wrote: > Can we change the name of the package? I know that is PITA, but you > risk running afoul of Nokia if your package name begins with maemo, > trademark and all that. Can you just swap it around to version-maemo? We are asking the renaming of pure end user apps called "Maemo Something" in order to avoid confusion of what is official and what is not. In this case we are talking about little utilities relevant only to SDK users, am I right? The impactb is minor. If the utilities are really useful then why not even consider them to be officially supported at soe point. Gabriel is a busy guy and I'd prefer not to bother him with this. ;) -- Quim Gil open source advocate Maemo Devices @ Nokia ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: maemo-release
On Nov 11, 2009, at 17:30, Aniello Del Sorbo wrote: >> >> If you don't change the name, it won't make it through extras-testing: >> http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras-testing/QA_Checklist#Legal_issues >> >> Quote: "It needs to be clear that the product is not officially supported by >> Nokia, Maemo or other commercial entities and trademarks." >> >> Jeremiah > > The email address of Gabriel is @nokia.com. > Is this an official package ? I'm not sure. It's fine with me as far as I'm concerned and if Nokia doesn't mind, then everything is okay! Jeremiah ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: maemo-release
2009/11/10 Jeremiah Foster : > > On Nov 10, 2009, at 13:27, Jeremiah Foster wrote: > >> >> On Nov 10, 2009, at 13:17, Frantisek Dufka wrote: >> >>> Gabriel Schulhof wrote: >>> >>> maemo-version/maemo-release can solve different Build-Depends: fields >>> >>> maemo version provides also /etc/maemo_version so one can check it in >>> /debian/rules when building the package and act differently (include >>> different files, define different variables) >>> >>> What else is needed? >> >> Can we change the name of the package? I know that is PITA, but you >> risk running afoul of Nokia if your package name begins with maemo, >> trademark and all that. Can you just swap it around to version-maemo? > > > If you don't change the name, it won't make it through extras-testing: > http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras-testing/QA_Checklist#Legal_issues > > Quote: "It needs to be clear that the product is not officially supported by > Nokia, Maemo or other commercial entities and trademarks." > > Jeremiah The email address of Gabriel is @nokia.com. Is this an official package ? -- anidel Sent from London, Eng, United Kingdom ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: maemo-release
On Nov 10, 2009, at 13:27, Jeremiah Foster wrote: > > On Nov 10, 2009, at 13:17, Frantisek Dufka wrote: > >> Gabriel Schulhof wrote: >> >> maemo-version/maemo-release can solve different Build-Depends: fields >> >> maemo version provides also /etc/maemo_version so one can check it in >> /debian/rules when building the package and act differently (include >> different files, define different variables) >> >> What else is needed? > > Can we change the name of the package? I know that is PITA, but you > risk running afoul of Nokia if your package name begins with maemo, > trademark and all that. Can you just swap it around to version-maemo? If you don't change the name, it won't make it through extras-testing: http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras-testing/QA_Checklist#Legal_issues Quote: "It needs to be clear that the product is not officially supported by Nokia, Maemo or other commercial entities and trademarks." Jeremiah ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: maemo-release
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Frantisek Dufka wrote: > But still it could be useful to set different compiler flags for arm > (vfp, thumb mode) [...] For that I think the standard way is to use dpkg-architecture in debian/rules, e.g.: HOST = $(shell dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_ARCH) ... ifeq ($(HOST),armel) # some ARM specific commands go here endif > [...] or workaround some stuff not available in stratchbox > environment. I see some packages checking for scratchbox environment by looking for presence of "/targets/links/scratchbox.config". This file is only available when you are inside a scratchbox target. Regards, -- Anderson Lizardo OpenBossa Labs - INdT Manaus - Brazil ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: maemo-release
Mikko Vartiainen wrote: >> How can I differentiate between arm and x86 builds? Example - x86 may >> use vorbis package but arm can use tremor so Build-Depends: can be >> different for x86 vs ARM. arm may also benefit from arm specific >> compiler flags. How can I solve that? > > > I'm not sure why would you want to do that in maemo context. Well, yes, my example was vorbis vs tremor but true that tremor/libivorbisdec is in x86 target too so I can use tremor in both. I don't have any other real world example. But still it could be useful to set different compiler flags for arm (vfp, thumb mode) or workaround some stuff not available in stratchbox environment. Frantisek ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: maemo-release
> How can I differentiate between arm and x86 builds? Example - x86 may > use vorbis package but arm can use tremor so Build-Depends: can be > different for x86 vs ARM. arm may also benefit from arm specific > compiler flags. How can I solve that? I'm not sure why would you want to do that in maemo context. You should be able to define architecture specific depencies this way "Build-Depends: package-name [armel], package2 [!armel]". Haven't actually tested it, but I think it should work. ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: maemo-release
On Nov 10, 2009, at 13:17, Frantisek Dufka wrote: > Gabriel Schulhof wrote: >> I suppose I should've asked around some more. > > We can still have interesting discussion now :-) > > Actually I am not sure if maemo-version solves every problem > maemo-release wanted to solve or developers need to solve to have same > package for more SDK versions. > > maemo-version/maemo-release can solve different Build-Depends: fields > > maemo version provides also /etc/maemo_version so one can check it in > /debian/rules when building the package and act differently (include > different files, define different variables) > > What else is needed? Can we change the name of the package? I know that is PITA, but you risk running afoul of Nokia if your package name begins with maemo, trademark and all that. Can you just swap it around to version-maemo? Maybe it is just enough to keep in mind that there may be potential naming conflicts in the future and leave the name as it is. Jeremiah ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: maemo-release
Gabriel Schulhof wrote: > I suppose I should've asked around some more. We can still have interesting discussion now :-) Actually I am not sure if maemo-version solves every problem maemo-release wanted to solve or developers need to solve to have same package for more SDK versions. maemo-version/maemo-release can solve different Build-Depends: fields maemo version provides also /etc/maemo_version so one can check it in /debian/rules when building the package and act differently (include different files, define different variables) What else is needed? How can I differentiate between arm and x86 builds? Example - x86 may use vorbis package but arm can use tremor so Build-Depends: can be different for x86 vs ARM. arm may also benefit from arm specific compiler flags. How can I solve that? Frantisek ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: maemo-release
Hey! On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 14:59 +0100, ext Frantisek Dufka wrote: > > I added a package to the extras(-devel)? repositories called > > maemo-release. It has version 1.0.0 in gregale, 2.0.0 in bora, 3.0.0 in > > Chinook, etc. ... > > There already is package named "maemo-version" in the SDK. And the > numbering is different (and consistent with SDK releases), Gregale is > 2.2, Bora 3.x, Chinook 4.0, Diablo 4.1, D'oh! I looked for such a package, but I was looking only in extras-devel. I suppose I should've asked around some more. > Not good :-( /me is embarrassed Gabriel ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: maemo-release
Gabriel Schulhof wrote: > Hey, all! > > I added a package to the extras(-devel)? repositories called > maemo-release. It has version 1.0.0 in gregale, 2.0.0 in bora, 3.0.0 in > Chinook, etc. ... There already is package named "maemo-version" in the SDK. And the numbering is different (and consistent with SDK releases), Gregale is 2.2, Bora 3.x, Chinook 4.0, Diablo 4.1, Not good :-( Regards, Frantisek ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: maemo-release
On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 12:16 +0200, Gabriel Schulhof wrote: > Hey, all! > > I added a package to the extras(-devel)? repositories called > maemo-release. It has version 1.0.0 in gregale, 2.0.0 in bora, 3.0.0 in > Chinook, etc. ... Cool... what values did you pick for Mer? David ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
