On 09/23/10 14:23, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 02:03:00PM -0700, Auke Kok wrote:
On 09/23/10 13:48, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 01:31:43PM -0700, Auke Kok wrote:
On 09/23/10 13:04, David Greaves wrote:
On 23/09/10 20:05, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 12:20:27PM -0500, Ibrahim Haddad wrote:
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Dave Neary<[email protected]> wrote:
Ibrahim Haddad wrote:
You can apply patches against
components in the MeeGo Core stack and you can add new components but
not to replace existing MeeGo components.
How far can this patching go? Do you have to be API compatible? ABI?
As a rule, patching should not break API or ABI compatibility.
I don't see ConnMan providing an API or ABI, do you? If so, where is it
documented?
Not to be facetious ... but in the reference code?
Isn't MeeGo supposed to be a reference implementation for people to build on
top of?
Sanity check... the objective is along the lines of:
if I see a distro labelled ".*MeeGo.*" then I can assume that my "MeeGo World[1]
compliant" app will find the complete set of services/apis/blah that the core
provides.
Will replacing ConnMan impact that?
Yes, if these are applications that use the dbus interface to
query/modify parameters that are handled through connmand.
So if we have a "drop-in-replacement" for this interface that doesn't
happen to be ConnMan, all should be fine, right?
does that drop-in-replacement provide the same proxy support that is
in connman?
Probably better :)
compatible?
_______________________________________________
MeeGo-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
