>From: Thiago Macieira [[email protected]] >Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 12:52 AM > >On Monday, 25 de October de 2010 17:35:48 Arjan van de Ven wrote: >> this is me, one of the MeeGo architects, opposing breaking the MeeGo API >> this lightly. >> MeeGo's value proposition is about giving a consistent platform to ISVs; >> and this proposal completely destroys that >> in image, if not reality. >> >> In part this is about reputation and part is about reality; if MeeGo >> ends up breaking the ABIs all the time, or perceived as breaking ABIs >> this lightly, >> why bother with MeeGo at all ???? >> >> so yes give me a break. > >This is why I was wondering why we're not using hardfp *now* for 1.1.0. > >We shouldn't be breaking binary compatibility. > >We shouldn't be softp either.
As I said in earlier thread, this is my fault. I should have undesrtood the signifigance and start that work early enough in MeeGo so we would have had change to get it into 1.1 already. My only defence is that this is pretty new stuff, and for the record, I am not ARM expert at all .. This important e.g. for Qt & Opengles, and we have that all over the place, even increasingly in the future. I don't see any other possibility that breaking the ABI now when we acn manage it, and also speak about that openly. Sotimes we make mistakes, and then we need to correct them. Br, //Harri _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
