About multi-app packaging directory policy
r.krypa at samsung.com
Thu Apr 9 11:28:59 GMT 2015
On 2015-04-08 05:59, sangyoon jang wrote:
> Dear folks,
> It seems that the multi-app packaging directory policy is different with Tizen 2.3
> According to 2.3 SDK, a sample multi-app package's directory hirearchy is like this:
> ├── author-signature.xml
> ├── bin
> │ └── mainapp
> │ └── subapp
> ├── lib
> ├── res
> ├── setting
> ├── shared
> │ ├── data
> │ ├── res
> │ │ └── mainapp.png
> │ │ └── subapp.png
> │ └── trusted
> ├── signature1.xml
> └── tizen-manifest.xml
> (pkgid:org.tizen.mainapp, main appid:org.tizen.mainapp, sub appid:org.tizen.subapp)
> Two applications are packaged in same root directory.
When designing application path structures for Tizen 3.0, we couldn't find any documents on that issue for Tizen 2.x. Is the above layout documented somewhere or is it just common practice in 2.3?
> But currently, app-installer(also security-manager treat as same) will install this package at: $HOME/apps_rw/<pkgid>/<appid>/...
The above path layout was introduced to support the following features:
1. Allow apps inside a package to be installed, uninstalled and upgraded separately. The desire to do that was actually based on how hybrid applications worked in Tizen 2.x with WRT+OSP (two separate apps with the same pkgId, installed by separate installers).
2. Isolate packages between each other by different Smack labels (directory TZ_USER_APP/PKG_ID has distinct Smack label assigned to package)
3. Give applications sharing the package a place to share data (applications have full access to package label and can write to TZ_USER_APP/PKG_ID)
Features 2 and 3 can be easily supported by both directory layouts (the 2.3 one you mentioned and the 3.0 layout). However one may expect issues with feature 1 in the 2.3 layout model. For example what should happen if two applications in a package provide the same file?
> Does anybody know whether the application directory policy is changed?
> I think that the application directory policy is not consistent now.
The path layout for Tizen 3 was designed without knowing requirements from Tizen 2.3. We should reconsider it now if there is anything in Tizen 2.3 that relies on the old path layout.
But it would be very beneficial to have understanding of how multi-app packages are going to look like. What will be their life-cycle (development, installation, upgrade). And whether or not wewant to support appliactions that are installed separately, but come with the same package id.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Dev