Dave Huseby 於 2015年03月25日 02:59 寫道:
Has anybody reached out to our partners and taken a survey of the ways
they modify our code for their devices? If there are patterns (e.g.
they all disable feature X) then maybe we should consider abstracting
away that part and make it super easy for them to provide their own
implementations. An abstraction opens the possibility of swapping
their implementation with another implementation at a later date--like
after the vendor has dropped support.
Chipset vendor/OEM partner modify gecko and gaia for stability,
performance and private functions.
These patches are not open, replace modified gecko/gaia with vanilla
gecko/gaia may brick device.
Ideally, Mozilla provides OTA for gecko/gaia, vendor provides FOTA for
their implementation and architecture change.
In reality, user seek customer service from vendor. How does Mozilla
provide service for gecko/gaia update with vendor before drop support?
What I'm getting at, is maybe there is a third option with vendors
where we negotiate a "sunset clause" situation. The partners provide
us with a signed app that "unlocks" their phones before they ship.
They lock their phone down and ship. Then when the partner officially
drops support (or otherwise authorizes us), we'll release the unlock
app via FOTA update or through the marketplace. It would replace the
swappable piece with the stock one and allow the user to change their
update channel to whatever they want. This attempts to balance the
partner's financial interests with the long-term interests of users.
Plus it makes FxOS easier to customize by the vendors.
Not sure "update channel" here, vendor can use 3rd party update solution
to their server, including remove original Mozilla update option in
settings.
I think change update channel should also completely remove 3rd party
update client, since there is limited space in /system.
Eric Tsai
_______________________________________________
dev-b2g mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
