[PureOS] Bits from PureOS | opening the firehose

[Guido Günther]

Hi,
On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 01:05:23PM -0500, Jeremiah C. Foster wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-11-25 at 14:04 +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
> > Hi Jeremiah,
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 02:11:02PM -0500, Jeremiah C. Foster wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > Some bits from PureOS;
> 
> > > Due to the fact that there is a new SoC / CPU in the Mini and
> > > the
> > > Librem 14, we need to move to a new kernel for these new devices.
> > > The
> > > good news is that the Byzantium kernel appears to fit our needs.
> > 
> > Let me add that we (as discussed) started uploading Librem 5 related
> > packages to byzantium. 
> 
> Do we need to have another version of the "blessed builds"
> documentation for the new pipelines and build process? I think that

For core apps nothing changes there atm. Except that we're

- building from the `pureos/byzantium` git branch
- have `byzantium` in the changelog.
- use a slightly different versioning scheme (see separate mail)

> documenting the end-to-end process of building a package for the Librem
> 5 might be useful for third party developers. I'm happy to work on this
> but will need a bit of guidance.

Since we drop the separate suite for byzantium (to not work around but
work *with* laneakia and hence have proper package transitions and
updates from Debian not overriding phone versions or have Matthias to
force migrations, etc.) there's also no 3rd party maintenance atm since
we don't have a suite in the archive for that

So to somewhat rephrase what i raised before: do we want a separate
suite for 3rd party software corresponding to amber-phone (name e.g.
byzantium-apps or byzantium-l5-apps) bringing back all side effects
we're currently trying to get rid off?

These would then come from the /Librem5-apps gitlab space and we'd need
indeed more docs.

But my understanding so far was:

- amber:
  Phone specific packages go to amber-phone (including 3rd party apps)

- byzantium:
  All packages go to byzantium proper and 3rd party apps use another
  distribution path (e.g. flatpak).

If that's not correct we'd need to introduce a suite for 3rd party apps
first.

> > As of now we avoided uploading patched gtk,
> > g-c-c, g-i-s, webkit, epiphany, ... but that is bound to change in
> > the
> > next couple of days. The rule for byzantium there is:
> > - must be a regular (non-sloppy) build
> > - if the software is not adaptive per se it need to figure things out
> >   by itself e.g. based on the form factor or the dowstream GTK toggle
> >   we have.
> > 
> > This will also lead to some consolidation e.g. on the g-i-s side and
> > the
> > aim is certainly to not break the laptop use case but i just want to
> > bring this up since the automatic testing you mentioned in earlier
> > reports would become even more useful now.
> 
> Yes, it seems like now is the time to implement this. Just to be clear,
> you're looking to test the resulting Librem 5 image? Or just packages
> in the Byzantium distro? This makes a difference of course in how we
> run the automated QA.

I'm mostly after automatic tests for amd64 (which could even happen in a
VM). Per device L5 or Laptops testing would go on top later on.

Cheers,
 -- Guido

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jeremiah
> 



> _______________________________________________
> PureOS-project mailing list
> PureOS-project at lists.puri.sm
> https://lists.puri.sm/listinfo/pureos-project