[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openmoko-community
Subject:    Re: [SHR testing] intone requires different e17 lib name
From:       Sander van Grieken <sander () 3v8 ! net>
Date:       2009-08-23 22:14:37
Message-ID: 200908240014.37199.sander () 3v8 ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sunday 23 August 2009 21:09:04 Sebastian Krzyszkowiak wrote:
> On 8/23/09, Sander van Grieken <sander@3v8.net> wrote:
> > On Saturday 22 August 2009 21:02:22 Sebastian Krzyszkowiak wrote:
> >> On 8/22/09, Marcel <tanuva@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> > Am Samstag, den 22.08.2009, 20:48 +0200 schrieb Sebastian Krzyszkowiak:
> >> >> On 8/22/09, Marcel <tanuva@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > G'evening,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm fiddling with SHR (some way to get paroli on it? >.<) and found
> >> >> > that the opkg.org intone 0.66 package is linked against
> >> >> > libe*-ver-svn-02.so.0 sonames but SHR testing contains
> >> >> > libe*-ver-pre-01.so.0 libs. Could you do another special SHR
> >> >> > testing build?
> >> >> > (Symlinking all of them to -svn-02 is another solution, but kinda
> >> >> > messy, too...)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Marcel
> >> >>
> >> >> Could you use supported distro? SHR unstable is the way to go - it
> >> >> works even more stable than testing. And Intone is there by default
> >> >> :P
> >> >
> >> > SHR testing is unsupported, but unstable is? And the latter even more
> >> > stable than testing? You SHR folks are strange... Okay, lemme
> >> > reflash...
> >>
> >> There are just too less hands to work, and maintaining -testing is
> >> hard work. We hope to release new testing image soon, and support it
> >> constantly. But noone knows when it'll finally happen...
> >
> > Why not just ditch the current testing and stable branches and branch
> > anew from unstable?
> > This just keeps tripping up newcomers to SHR (I have seen at least 10-15
> > of these mails in
> > the last few months?). At the very least, remove those branches that
> > shouldn't be used
> > right now anyway.
> >
> > Of course I agree that it's a lot of work to maintain multiple branches,
> > but the least
> > that should be done is to avoid partial merges (which takes effort) and
> > instead do full
> > merges (essentialy copies) from unstable revisions that are 'known to be
> > good' (or as good
> > as possible :). This way users (non-devs) can keep pace with recent fixes
> > while at the same
> > time avoiding the occasional breakage that occurs in unstable.
> >
> > Sander
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Openmoko community mailing list
> > community@lists.openmoko.org
> > http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
>
> There were tons of mails discussing how we should do testing and
> stable. On every possible maillist... And everything is discussed. To
> death. There was one brave enough, mrmoku (he's on vacations now), but
> he was doing it alone and he didn't finished yet (but i think we're
> close to). Unfortunately most of SHR devs are Python, C or Vala
> coders, not bitbake gurus :(

I'm not reopening the discussion on that. But I think the stable and testing branches, 
images and feeds should go, because nobody uses them now (correct me if I'm wrong) and 
they basically lead to confusion.

And I understand fully that there's just not enough manpower to maintain them actively, 
but then just accept that the only real flavor offered right now is the unstable branch. 

Sander

_______________________________________________
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]