Talk:Contents manifest specification: Difference between revisions

From OLPC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Talk:Manifest Specification moved to Talk:Contents Manifest Specification: Standardizing on calling these 'contents' files.)
Line 5: Line 5:


Let's go back to RPM, or preferably Deb. This not-invented-here packaging system is just painful.
Let's go back to RPM, or preferably Deb. This not-invented-here packaging system is just painful.

[[User:Gnu]]
:Tools are at http://dev.laptop.org/git?p=users/cscott/olpc-contents and they are installed on every XO. You shouldn't have to understand the details of the format; an appropriate invocation of olpc-contents-create will be performed by the .xo building tools.
: [[User:CScott|CScott]] 13:47, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Revision as of 18:47, 6 December 2007

What use is this?

OK, the Activity_bundles spec says it's required, but it's a complicated gibberish format, without any tools to generate it. Is this just a useless paper spec? Do applications *actually* have to include a manifest, sign it, etc? Until there are real tools for anybody to easily make one, my app isn't gonna have one...

Let's go back to RPM, or preferably Deb. This not-invented-here packaging system is just painful.

User:Gnu

Tools are at http://dev.laptop.org/git?p=users/cscott/olpc-contents and they are installed on every XO. You shouldn't have to understand the details of the format; an appropriate invocation of olpc-contents-create will be performed by the .xo building tools.
CScott 13:47, 6 December 2007 (EST)