On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 09:14:43AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On 7/29/2010 1:35 AM, Andrew Wafaa wrote: > > >Aloha all, > > > > > >I'm having some issues getting the network panel to display properly > > >using NetworkManager as the backend via network-manager-netbook. I > > >appreciate MeeGo uses connman and that is upstream's preferred method, > > >but us mere mainline distros use& like NM ;) > > > > > > > > are you suggesting that MeeGo is not a mainline distro ? > > No, he's just saying that NM supports a lot of things that conman does > not at this time, which is required by other distros :) > I can also suggest a scenario for this. When someone tries to provide a distro specific flavor of MeeGo. For example Fedora 14 is supposed to have a MeeGo desktop component similar to the Moblin ones they had before. And later that usually leads to a Fedora MeeGo spin. In a case like this it would be much convenient to get rest of the MeeGo components running with the distro infrastructure (i.e. software) at hand. Even if they have no case against ConnMan, being able to use NetworkManager (and related) makes much sense.
> > Anyway, Andrew, I think that we are on our own here to get NM into the > MeeGo infrastructure at this time, as conman is one of the licensing > requirements for the MeeGo name, so you are probably the first to try > this. > I think this has been brought up many a times before. Is the actual MeeGo compatibility process and/or specification out for the public? I can guess how having connman in an important position helps with ABI/API compatibility, but knowing exactly what to have would be much better. :) I apologise for the off-topic content regarding compatibility. -- Gaveen Prabhasara
_______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
