On quarta-feira, 23 de outubro de 2013 08:41:01, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote: > On 23 October 2013 05:56, Kim, Yoonsoo <[email protected]> wrote: > > [..] > > > But I have a quick question. I think this question is very important > > because the answer will set the scope of discussion on this matter. > > > > Do you intend to include Qt in Tizen compliance? If you do, in what > > profiles do you want to include Qt? > > > > I think whether Qt is included in profile(s) or not will make huge > > architectural differences. > > Hi Yoonsoo, > At the moment we're proposing Qt as add-on, optional packages. > > Yes that's true, Tizen architecture would have to change towards even > more modular if Qt is a mandatory component. We would like to leave > final decision to owners of individual profiles, offering our support > and expertise.
The same way that we may have a "Mobile minus native" compliance profile, we might end up with a "Mobile plus Qt". But I agree with Jaroslaw here: it's too early to tell. Right now, it's more about integrating it with the infrastructure, making sure it builds, works properly if installed by an OEM. In addition, the on-going discussion of 3rdparty library installation feature can potentially have a lot of impact on this. If we come up with a way for 3rd party libraries to be installed, this could be a way for distributing Qt to devices without affecting compliance. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
