On Sep 15, 2010, at 11:39 PM, Alexey Khoroshilov wrote: > On 09/15/2010 08:13 PM, Skarpness, Mark wrote: >> Hi Dave, >> On Sep 15, 2010, at 1:51 AM, Dave Neary wrote: >>> I can get that a commercial application developer wants to be able to >>> build a package which will install on any MeeGo device... we're not >>> talking about requiring that people split off dependencies, but allowing >>> that things can be done like that. >>> >> The problem is that once we allow it, then we require everyone building a >> compliant device to support it. Otherwise we will miss the primary >> objective of compliance: every compliant app will run on every compliant >> device. >> > One of possible approaches may be to have a second class of compliant > applications with a separate name and a limited promise: > Every second class compliant app will run on every compliant device if > the device satisfies extra hardware requirements. > Please check your device capabilities! While this is possible, it creates fragmentation. We want to have a simple, unified compliance story for MeeGo. Of course device vendors are free to add whatever they want on top of a compliant device (special apps that take advantage of unique hardware or software features, enable the use of external dependencies, ....) - but those additions are specific to the device. > > It might be useful for apps tightly depending on some specific hardware > features that cannot be added to MeeGo minimum hardware requirements by > some reason. Support for MeeGo Extras/Surrounds can be considered as an > extra "hardware" feature of a device as well. It's absolutely fine for a device to enable these - what we are debating is what MeeGo compliance will require all devices to support. > > > Alexey Khoroshilov, > ISPRAS / Linux Foundation >
_______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
