On 16/09/10 13:55, Carsten Munk wrote:
So, I have personally lost complete track of the spec thread and
decided to re-read the actual spec draft, that is,
http://wiki.meego.com/images/MeeGo-Compliance-Spec-1.0.80.8.pdf
After doing this, I'm wondering what exact wording in the spec we're
fighting over.
What I wondered after reading the thread - We have advanced package
management, repositories, dependency solving, garage clients (OCS),
app store like things. but the premise seemed to be: that we resort to
what's essentially: "if rpm -i packagename.rpm doesn't succeed on a
fresh MeeGo device, packagename.rpm is not a MeeGo compliant
application"
However. Did anyone -actually- read the spec?
Yes... However Arjan then said:
http://lists.meego.com/pipermail/meego-dev/2010-September/005466.html
which appears to have kicked the whole thing off :)
However his statement has lead to a deep discussion; so even if it is
(hopefully) rescinded, we've learned a lot in the debate.
David
--
"Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon once..."
_______________________________________________
MeeGo-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
