[SHR testing] intone requires different e17 lib name

Sander van Grieken sander at 3v8.net
Mon Aug 24 00:14:37 CEST 2009


On Sunday 23 August 2009 21:09:04 Sebastian Krzyszkowiak wrote:
> On 8/23/09, Sander van Grieken <sander at 3v8.net> wrote:
> > On Saturday 22 August 2009 21:02:22 Sebastian Krzyszkowiak wrote:
> >> On 8/22/09, Marcel <tanuva at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> > Am Samstag, den 22.08.2009, 20:48 +0200 schrieb Sebastian Krzyszkowiak:
> >> >> On 8/22/09, Marcel <tanuva at 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 at 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



More information about the community mailing list