[meego-packaging] rejections FAQ - un-spectacle package isn't allowed
fboudra at gmail.com
Wed Aug 4 23:51:33 PDT 2010
from Arjan (architect):
> if a package is using spectacle already, it should keep doing so.
from Anas (RM):
> There must be a very good reason why a package is changed this way.
> If there is a new release that introduces something not supported by spectacle
> or makes using spectacle a nightmare, then we should either add support
> in spectacle for the new packaging requirements or temporarily unspectacle it
> or update the spec manually and add a note about this,
> no reason why the yaml file should be removed.
to summarize current situation:
- spectacle is NOT mandatory for new packages
- un-spectacle is NOT allowed for existing packages (exceptions)
- Intel has proved that spectacle
- is able to deal with most packages (it can be extended like a pure
- will be fixed if issues are encountered
- Intel will push his engineers to use spectacle
In my hypothesis:
> Let's say a maintainer/packager provides YAML files for most packages ;),
> it means on the next package update round, you don't have a choice anymore.
> The package have been spectaclified and the maintainer/packager has enforced spectacle usage.
At some point, most packages will be spectaclified.
Indeed, we'll still have exceptions but the rules will be spectacle usage.
I propose to go further: spectacle IS mandatory but there's some exceptions.
Why? it will be the reality in the long term,
so let's inform MeeGo developers and community about it now.
When? it could be applied from MeeGo 1.2 for a natural flow transition.
More information about the MeeGo-packaging