Hi Mitsutaks
We can open feature request in the bug data base and track ideas,
suggestions there? What do you say?
Thanks,
Praj
-----Original Message-----
From: Mitsutaka Amano [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 8:25 AM
To: Loïc Minier; Karur Mohan, Prajwal; Moblin Dev
Subject: Re: FSets / Platforms cleanup (Was: Merging back "Ubuntu's
moblin-image-creator" with upstream's)
Dear Loic,
It's good idea. Currently when we select a platform, we can use fset limit.
We think MIC has to imporve a lot of current funciton, issue and new feature
toward moblin 2.0.
Praj,
I'd like to place to can stack an idea.
Gradually we have to share something. your idea, my idea, Ubuntu's idea and
moblin developer's idea.
Are there a place of *TODO* list page?
========================================
Mitsutaka Amano
MIRACLE LINUX CORPORATION
========================================
Loïc Minier wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Allow me to fork the discussion into a plaform/fset cleanup subthread.
>
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008, Mitsutaka Amano wrote:
>
>>>> - 40_fsets.patch
>>>>
>> Thank you for your a lot of information. I understand they are
>> specification of UME.
>>
>
> Well, I'm not sure: basically the fset concept duplicates information
> which is already available in Ubuntu in the form of meta-packages.
> It's only useful to name some group of packages when the names differ
> across sets of repos IMO.
> This fixes the fsets contents to install the proper packages and use
> meta-packages for as much data as possible for Ubuntu fsets. I think
> this should be merged upstream as otherwise people creating images
> using your MIC or Ubuntu's MIC will get different results despite
> selecting the same config.
>
> IMHO the fsets in MIC are quite a mess ATM; they are listing a lot of
> packages with no clear way to assert the rationale behind them.
> Instead of multiplying the convenience fsets, I would personally
> recommend simplifying them and simplifying platform usage as well.
>
> I think we should have one platform per set of repositories; for
> instance:
> - "Ubuntu MID hardy": Ubuntu hardy .debs + ubuntu-mobile hardy ppa .debs
> - "Ubuntu MID intrepid": Ubuntu intrepid .debs
> - "Moblin 2": Moblin's "Stable" .rpms
>
> I *don't* think we should have a platform per package architecture;
> instead, there should be a platform default (e.g. lpia for Ubuntu and
> i586 for Fedora); if necessary we could provide a way to override
> architecture for each project, but is anyone building for other arches
> than these?
>
> Additionally, we should:
> * Stop having platforms per hardware architecture: the same
> repositories are used for McCaslin and Menlow .deb packages, I see
> no point in maintaining menlow-* and mccaslin-* *platforms*; we
> already maintain per device *fsets*
> * Stop having hardware-specific platforms such as netbook-*: the .debs
> or .rpms are again in the same repositories, so I see no reason for
> * Drop the "Stack" fsets: CrownBeach-Full-Mobile-Stack,
> * CrownBeach-Full-Mobile-Stack-with-Proprietary,
> Moblin-CrownBeach-Full-Mobile-Stack,
> Moblin-CrownBeach-Full-Mobile-Stack-with-Proprietary,
> Samsung-Full-Mobile-Stack,
> Samsung-Full-Mobile-Stack-with-Proprietary, Zi9-Full-Mobile-Stack,
> Zi9-Full-Mobile-Stack
> Instead, we should only provide per-device config packages (and that
> should also disappear over time) and the "stack" fsets should be
> GNOME-Mobile OR Ubuntu-Mobile OR Moblin2 etc. corresponding to a)
> device specific packages -- usually only a single package and b)
> choice of stack packages; typically the Ubuntu-Mobile fset would
> probably be "ubuntu-mobile, ubuntu-minimal" or something along these
> lines
> * Drop the "Core" fset: I don't think there's any such thing as the
> core; "ubuntu-mobile" should depend on packages it needs, the same
> goes for GNOME Mobile etc.; if a choice needs to be made, the name
> of the project making the choice should be clear: Moblin2-Core,
> Moblin2-Desktop, Moblin2-Netbook etc. For the same reasons, we
> should drop Core-Dev, Build, Developer-Tools, Ubuntu-Kernel,
> Traditional-Desktop, Technology-Integration-Testing, Ubuntu-Staging,
> X, X-Dev etc.
>
> IMO fsets should have a standardized name and provide "stacks", or
> support for a particular device. I would expect device support to be
> available on all platforms (e.g. "Samsung-Q1U", "CrownBeach") and
> stacks to be available on all or some platforms (e.g. "GNOME-Mobile"
> available everywhere and Ubuntu-Mobile available on Ubuntu platforms).
>
> We should limit fsets and platforms to a minimum IMO.
>
>
> Ultimately, I think users should be stating that:
> a) I want to build against platform "Ubuntu intrepid" or "Moblin 2"
> => select platform in platform drop down
> b) I want to use software stack "GNOME Mobile" or "Ubuntu MID"
> => add fset for this stack in fset list
> c) (optional) some of my target devices need device-specific packages
> => add fset for this device in fset list (e.g. "Samsung Q1U")
>
> What do you think?
>
> I don't think this requires much if any *code* changes to MIC; it
> mostly means cleaning up of data definitions. Dropping a lot of old
> stuff, reducing duplication, making things simple and obvious is how I
> see it.
>
>
> (I would like to add support for Ubuntu intrepid when we can settle on
> this.)
>
> Cheers,
>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.moblin.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
