[MeeGo-dev] MeeGo OBS shutdown - huge thanks and moving on

nst Mer based distros (with some special cases for our infrastructure tools like OBS, BOSS, IMG etc) - but do talk to us if you have any questions. I'll continue to act as a volunteer sysadmin until the lights go out; it's been an experience and a pleasure working with the MeeGo commun

[MeeGo-dev] TSG Agenda request : Re: The future for the MeeGo OBS

l not resolve this issue in this email thread. Ryan -Original Message- From: David Greaves [mailto:da...@dgreaves.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 9:29 AM To: Ware, Ryan R Cc: meego-dev@meego.com; brian.war...@linuxfoundation.org; Sousou, Imad; Anas Nashif; meego...@meego.com Subject: Re

Re: [MeeGo-dev] The future for the MeeGo OBS

ple suffer when we could easily help out. On 12/10/11 15:32, Ware, Ryan R wrote: David, The MeeGo OBS is the purview of the Release Engineering team. It has been that way since long before you came aboard the project. If you have concerns about that, please bring it up with the TS

[MeeGo-dev] The future for the MeeGo OBS

The MeeGo OBS at build.meego.com is down... again. The MeeGo IT team renew their offer to provide additional service level support for the main OBS. This would allows the community to have some confidence in the continuity and availability of these important services and provides the commerci

Re: [MeeGo-dev] OBS status

On 04/08/11 16:05, Nasa wrote: - Original Message - 2011/8/4 Nasa: Hi, I was wondering if anyone know about the status of OBS? I have been trying to upload files via the web interface without much luck -- it is giving me the following message: OBS Web Interface Error: Error Details

Re: [MeeGo-dev] LF will not permit apps.meego.com : say hello to apps.formeego.org

On 04/08/11 09:53, Jeremiah Foster wrote: Again you conflate LF with "the community" I don't, on the contrary. I think that they are distinct entities and the LF has no interest in the community. This makes the answer to your question if the LF a suitable host for the MeeGo community sim

Re: [MeeGo-dev] LF will not permit apps.meego.com : say hello to apps.formeego.org

On 03/08/11 20:12, Jeremiah Foster wrote: On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 6:55 PM, David Greaves mailto:da...@dgreaves.com>> wrote: Take a deep breath Jeremiah :) meh. The ad hominem attacks are irrelevant. *that* was an attack? It was meant to remind you that we're friends. Th

Re: [MeeGo-dev] [MeeGo-community] LF will not permit apps.meego.com : say hello to apps.formeego.org

On 03/08/11 20:21, Jeremiah Foster wrote: What is the purpose of "formeego.org "? To host apps for MeeGo? The purpose is not yet defined but a starting point may be to identify services that are not sanctioned by the MeeGo trademark owner but which are nonetheless importa

Re: [MeeGo-dev] LF will not permit apps.meego.com : say hello to apps.formeego.org

n the end, developers vote with their contributions, so we can molly coddle a thousand legal eagles and not advance GNU/Linux one tiny inch forward. David Greaves has done the only logical thing when you hit an impasse; fork. I certainly wouldn't consider it a fork - as this unfolded I was wo

[MeeGo-dev] LF will not permit apps.meego.com : say hello to apps.formeego.org

cc'ed meego-dev as this may be of interest. Followup to meego-community please. Also cc'ed relevant forums. Over the past few weeks a few of us who have been involved in the MeeGo community infrastructure have been trying to solve a problem relating to MeeGo Apps : apps.meego.com After a few

Re: [MeeGo-dev] meego OBS down again... Without Warning?

On 30/07/11 10:59, Brendan Le Foll wrote: It seems that lately OBS is a strictly Monday to Friday service. Is this the new policy? Can we get some advance warning if this is normal maintenance, and if not what keeps going wrong on saturday/sunday? This is a real pain for people like me who thou

Re: [MeeGo-dev] MeeGo app model in 2012: Rethinking the MeeGo app model to be more platform agnostic

On 31/05/11 20:32, Michał Sawicz wrote: Dnia 2011-05-31, wto o godzinie 11:34 +0100, David Greaves pisze: We have python. QML can access python objects directly if I understood Thomas Perl's excellent talk. Yes, PySide would definitely be one way. But, as you can probably remember fro

Re: [MeeGo-dev] MeeGo app model in 2012: Rethinking the MeeGo app model to be more platform agnostic

On 31/05/11 10:25, Carsten Munk wrote: Yes, indeed - I've been fed the usual JVM and JIT knowledge through my university education like many others, but this isn't the approach taken in MeeGo currently as we have to write C++ for our native Qt Quick extensions and we don't have a JVM on each devi

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Labels on switches widgets considered evil

On 28/04/11 16:56, Andy Ross wrote: On 04/28/2011 08:04 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: I am distinctly unimpressed by the fact that in GNOME 3 I have to click where it says 'OFF' to make my VPN connect, and click where it says 'ON' to make it disconnect. Can I set up a translation so that _("ON") =

Re: [MeeGo-dev] howto prevent unrequired build dependency remove when doing local osc builds?

On 06/04/11 13:15, Mika Laitio wrote: I have setted in my .oscrc build-root = /var/tmp/%(repo)s-%(arch)s If I first build mce locally with "osc build armv8el Trunk_Testing", I have in my build root all packages that were required for building the mce on /var/tmp/Trunk_Testing-armv8el But If I w

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Architecture decisions (was Re: migration (back) to EDS)

On 25/03/11 09:11, Ville M. Vainio wrote: On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Richard Dale wrote: I personally think that the Nepomuk non-application specific integrated data approach could be a killer feature of MeeGo. In comparison iOS is completely Agreed. Luckily tracker will still be the

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Packaging the MeeGo stack on Debian - Use the name ?

On 12/12/10 23:30, David Greaves wrote: I'm cc'ing th meego-community list as I think there are a lot of people there who are having similar conversations. On 09/12/10 19:12, Ibrahim Haddad wrote: > The MeeGo Project members devoted quite a bit of time discussing these > q

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Packaging the MeeGo stack on Debian - Use the name ?

I'm cc'ing th meego-community list as I think there are a lot of people there who are having similar conversations. On 09/12/10 19:12, Ibrahim Haddad wrote: > The MeeGo Project members devoted quite a bit of time discussing these > questions to make sure the responses are fair and most of all w

Re: [MeeGo-dev] OBS, MeeGo and the social desktop : Application information, feedback and rating

On 28/10/10 11:46, Ville M. Vainio wrote: On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 1:41 PM, David Greaves wrote: As I say, the use-case is something around providing feedback from the application launcher on the device; maybe an on-device popup that allows a star rating, comment etc that is linked back to the

[MeeGo-dev] OBS, MeeGo and the social desktop : Application information, feedback and rating

This is more of an initial exploration than a concrete proposal :) I'll post this to both the opensuse-buildserv...@opensuse.org and meego-dev@meego.com lists. MeeGo is going to be using the Open Collaboration Services (OCS) API. http://www.socialdesktop.org/ocs/ http://www.freedesktop.org

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Trademark compliance, name usage, etc.

On 23/09/10 22:25, Greg KH wrote: On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:45:45PM +0200, Thiago Macieira wrote: On Thursday 23. September 2010 21.05.56 Greg KH wrote: I don't see ConnMan providing an API or ABI, do you? If so, where is it documented? Yes, I do. It has a D-Bus API. So, if _thats_ the re

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Trademark compliance, name usage, etc.

On 21/09/10 04:34, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 08:20:48PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: my understanding is that the license field in the (binary) RPMs contains "restricted" for these, with a detailed license inside the package. Do you have a list of which packages these are, or ar

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Trademark compliance, name usage, etc.

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 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 existi

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Meego spec - for comment

On 18/09/10 13:48, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote: Let's *NOT* try to make repsoitory-driven app sets "MeeGo Compliant." Is this a proposal? Technical or policy? An assumption? As I said ... my objective is to permit (not mandate) MeeGo compliance for applications developed using the open-sourc

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Meego spec - for comment

Allow me to invert this email and suggest some prioritisation. On 18/09/10 01:09, Skarpness, Mark wrote: > What we have been discussing on this thread is the guidelines themselves... Good point ... and I have made one of the very few concrete proposals for wording in this thread ... and AFAICS

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Meego spec - for comment

On 17/09/10 17:58, Skarpness, Mark wrote: On Sep 16, 2010, at 1:38 PM, David Greaves wrote: On 16/09/10 19:50, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: If no external dependencies are allowed, the device vendor only has the burden of providing the core api. Since every device provides this api, every compliant

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Meego spec - for comment

On 16/09/10 23:13, Arjan van de Ven wrote: On 9/16/2010 3:05 PM, David Greaves wrot That is indeed why I said Nokia, not Vodafone. Vodafone probably won't allow Surrounds/Extras (initially) - but at the idea is that at least they won't be able to say "you're not compliant&q

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Meego spec - for comment

(high latency due to draft email hiding behind open windows) On 16/09/10 15:03, Arjan van de Ven wrote: On 9/16/2010 4:06 AM, David Greaves wrote: On 16/09/10 11:26, Arjan van de Ven wrote: But to be honest, I somewhat doubt that hardware vendors or the operators will think more than a few

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Meego spec - for comment

On 16/09/10 19:50, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: If no external dependencies are allowed, the device vendor only has the burden of providing the core api. Since every device provides this api, every compliant app is guaranteed to be able to run on the device. If a developer wants an application to run on

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Meego spec - for comment

David On 16/09/10 21:05, David Greaves wrote: On 16/09/10 20:06, Arjan van de Ven wrote: On 9/16/2010 11:44 AM, David Greaves wrote: On 16/09/10 19:09, Skarpness, Mark wrote: If the 2nd differs because it "depends" on the first one then what additional burden exists? As we have

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Meego spec - for comment

On 16/09/10 21:00, Skarpness, Mark wrote: On Sep 16, 2010, at 12:37 PM, Andrew Flegg wrote: On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 19:09, Skarpness, Mark wrote: On Sep 16, 2010, at 10:42 AM, David Greaves wrote: If I make a package that is api-compliant and self-contained and put it in Extras then that can

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Meego spec - for comment

On 16/09/10 20:06, Arjan van de Ven wrote: On 9/16/2010 11:44 AM, David Greaves wrote: On 16/09/10 19:09, Skarpness, Mark wrote: If the 2nd differs because it "depends" on the first one then what additional burden exists? As we have discussed repeatedly - the burden that a device mu

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Meego spec - for comment

On 16/09/10 19:09, Skarpness, Mark wrote: If the 2nd differs because it "depends" on the first one then what additional burden exists? As we have discussed repeatedly - the burden that a device must provide a way to install the second app (or dependency). Can we agree our goals? I think we ne

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Meego spec - for comment

On 16/09/10 17:24, Skarpness, Mark wrote: On Sep 16, 2010, at 4:36 AM, David Greaves wrote: So... a vendor has the freedom to forbid certain MeeGo compliant apps on their device/store? Yes Good. If MeeGo then permits Surrounds-dependent apps to be labelled "Compliant" then t

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Meego spec - for comment

On 16/09/10 15:28, Anas Nashif wrote: On 2010-09-16, at 12:20 PM, David Greaves wrote: On 16/09/10 11:52, Counihan, Tom wrote: The IVI vertical reflects the above, OEMs will most likely always lock down, primarily driven from safety concerns - litigation and publicity concerns over the

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Compliance spec and 3rd party dependencies: why are we all fighting?

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

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Meego spec - for comment

On 15/09/10 23:59, Skarpness, Mark wrote: > I view it the other way around: what requirements is compliance placing on > the device manufacturer and are those reasonable and supportable. > > Setting the details of how compliant apps are packaged and delivered aside - > compliance does not dictate

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Meego spec - for comment

On 16/09/10 11:52, Counihan, Tom wrote: [mailto:meego-dev-boun...@meego.com] On Behalf Of Arjan van de Ven Sent: 16 I think that in practice, phones will be locked down and the content you can get on it controlled by the operator and/or OEM. Yes there will be some people who will buy an unlocked

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Meego spec - for comment

On 16/09/10 11:26, Arjan van de Ven wrote: But to be honest, I somewhat doubt that hardware vendors or the operators will think more than a few seconds and just not enable it, even if they were to take the OS nearly directly from meego.com Precisely. Whereas if apps linking to Surrounds were c

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Meego spec - for comment

On 15/09/10 19:16, quim@nokia.com wrote: > Why game using as example box2d physics library should not called > "MeeGo compliant" ? And it is just example of dozens similar > helper libraries used by game and graphics developers. Because box2d is not included in MeeGo and a user of a Mee

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Meego spec - for comment

On 14/09/10 23:34, Skarpness, Mark wrote: On Sep 14, 2010, at 2:09 PM, David Greaves wrote: Allowing applications to have arbitrary external dependencies that are resolved at install time adds a great deal of complexity and uncertainty for a device manufacturer (substitute "MeeGo sof

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Meego spec - for comment

sorry - the quote attribution seems messed up. On Sep 14, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Alexey Khoroshilov wrote: On 14/09/10 20:19, Skarpness, Mark wrote: On 09/13/2010 11:53 PM, Quim Gil wrote: On 09/13/2010 12:04 PM, ext Alexey Khoroshilov wrote: Just to clarify, > all API that MUST be installed by

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Meego spec - for comment

On 13/09/10 22:28, Arjan van de Ven wrote: On 9/13/2010 2:18 PM, David Greaves wrote: On 13/09/10 21:58, Arjan van de Ven wrote: if apps can depend on Extras being there, suddenly the OS size for the device becomes much bigger. Not the amount present at ship time, but the amount the OEM needs

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Meego spec - for comment

On 13/09/10 21:58, Arjan van de Ven wrote: so here is a catch; if it is part of Extras and "real apps" depend on it, suddenly "no security updates" is absolutely not an option. See my mail a few minutes ago about scoping and responsibility. Nothing forces "real" apps to depend on Extras/Surroun

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Meego spec - for comment

Bearing in mind that all of this is 100% permissible anyway; we are simply asking "is it still a MeeGo app" if you build using the community managed libs. I think we're proposing that apps that build using APIs in the MeeGo Core *or* in MeeGo Extras[1] are allowed to be called MeeGo apps. Aga

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Meego spec - for comment

On 09/09/10 09:59, Marius Vollmer wrote: "ext Ville M. Vainio" writes: On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Andrew Flegg wrote: That's why I'm proposing that the language in the spec recognises that MeeGo-compliant packages can have a canonical location (e.g. "repository X") and can depend on a

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Meego spec - for comment

On 09/09/10 12:32, Ville M. Vainio wrote: On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Dave Neary wrote: Making Extras a "blessed" repository of packages would nicely solve that issue - you can restrict further dependencies to "libraries which are included in the core, or MeeGo compliant libraries availabl

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Meego spec - for comment

On 08/09/10 15:00, Wichmann, Mats D wrote: Warren Baird wrote: Seems to me like the wind is blowing in the other direction, at least on this mailing list... yes it is, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. more that the architects has seem pretty set on this idea. Can I echo "who said what?"

[MeeGo-dev] MeeGo-commits ... reply-to to MeeGo dev ?

So, having argued for the reply-to on meego-dev and -community to *not* be munged I'd like to suggest that meego-commits *is* munged and reply-to is set to meego-dev or meego-packaging. The rationale is that few people will want to track the meego-commits stream directly (many of which are aut

Re: [MeeGo-dev] non SSSE3 MeeGo

On 12/08/10 20:52, Auke Kok wrote: On 08/12/2010 12:33 PM, Alistair Buxton wrote: On 12 August 2010 19:07, Ryan Ware wrote: David, Seeing your post is a bit disconcerting. It's hard to decide write a post like that but I felt it should be discussed more. I tried to be balanced, raise the issu

Re: [MeeGo-dev] non SSSE3 MeeGo

On 12/08/10 00:06, martin brook wrote: Hi, After a lively discussion on #meego (http://mg.pov.lt/meego-irclog/%23meego.2010-08-11.log.html from 21:17) I have created a wiki page to further community developmet of a non SSSE3 Meego build. http://wiki.meego.com/Devices/nonSSSE3 If you can help i

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Proposal: Providing a compelling device porter environment for ARM and X86 using (platform?) SDK

cc meego-sdk and no snips to retain context. On 07/08/10 20:52, Carsten Munk wrote: One of the very first steps of porting MeeGo to your device, ARM or X86, is to generate a reference device image - often you take the reference device that is most close to your target device. This is done throu

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Access to meego OBS

On 03/08/10 23:13, Renato Araujo wrote: Hi, I would like to know how I can get access to meego OBS to submit PySide packages with Python bindings to Qt, QtMobility and meego-touch? The MeeGo Community OBS is just about ready... it'll be the easiest place to get an account and prepare things f

Re: [MeeGo-dev] [MeeGo-community] Open Letter/Proposal to allow Maemo on the MeeGo Community OBS

://wiki.meego.com/Build_Infrastructure/Community_Builder/Installation On 15/06/10 18:16, David Greaves wrote: This is an open letter to the whole MeeGo community and on behalf of the Maemo development community. The purpose of this letter is to ask the MeeGo community for their permission to bring

Re: [MeeGo-dev] nfs package in meego ?

On 24/07/10 18:30, Martin Grimme wrote: Hi, 2010/7/24, Arjan van de Ven: NFS is both a pain, and outside our use model (NFS over wifi or 3g does not work well at all.. I have to disagree! I am using NFS reliably over WiFi at home and it works fine. Not having NFS by default on MeeGo is one th

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Community OBS looking for beta testers

Quick follow up... Due to the stunning download speed (50kbs) from the meego repos it took more than my allotted sunday to get the repos for :current in place. Then we had a couple of minor issues to fix. However, it now appears that building against :1.0 and :current work. Let us know as yo

[MeeGo-dev] Community OBS looking for beta testers

Hi We're looking for beta testers for the community OBS. The current focus is on ensuring non-core apps (and libs) can be built against MeeGo and Maemo. We need people who know how to use the OBS and can identify (and ideally help fix) issues. Please contact me or Neils if you can help; id

Re: [MeeGo-dev] OBS

On 08/07/10 17:11, William Mills wrote: I was planning to follow this procedure: http://wiki.meego.com/Build_Infrastructure/Sysadmin_Distro/OBS1.8_setup_openSUSE112 However it says " You need an login to build.meego.com to execute this script." http://wiki.meego.com/Build_Infrastructure/Sysadmi

Re: [MeeGo-dev] After handset day one - a plea for openness

On 07/07/10 00:32, Dirk Hohndel wrote: Again, the default builds that we provide are optimized for Atom - I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It's fairly straight forward to build for other platforms if you need that, but I think it is not a reasonable request that we shouldn't optimi

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Changelog formatting (was Re: [meego-packaging] 4899: Changes to MeeGo:1.0:Netbook:Update:Testing/evolution ACCEPTED)

On 27/06/10 12:07, Zhu, Peter J wrote: Cool. I compared this with guideline and seem only missing or inconsistent parts are a missing dash "-" between mail and version. I wasn't explicit - I was just working on the link/bug refs so I knew what I was looking at ;) These: # +- fix another two

[MeeGo-dev] Changelog formatting (was Re: [meego-packaging] 4899: Changes to MeeGo:1.0:Netbook:Update:Testing/evolution ACCEPTED)

(note cross-posting - I don't think all devs are on meego-packaging) Just picking on this as a typical example: On 27/06/10 09:45, Peter Zhu wrote: >submit: home:mmeeks:branches:MeeGo:1.0:Netbook:Update:Testing/evolution(r8)(cleanup) -> MeeGo:1.0:Netbook:Update:Testing/evolution > > > Me

Re: [MeeGo-dev] multimedia architecture

On 22/06/10 16:32, Tomas Frydrych wrote: This is entirely irrelevant; MeeGo *is* Linux, and we are not discussing Qt architecture here, but MeeGo architecture. Ultimately the MeeGo architecture must make engineering sense in itself, and should not be restricted by the limitations that Qt is impos

[MeeGo-dev] Open Letter/Proposal to allow Maemo on the MeeGo Community OBS

to this repository based on acceptance of an EULA * To *not* require any such EULA for 'MeeGo-only' accounts on the service I've run this by Tero Kejo in Nokia and he's very supportive of the idea. From: David Greaves / lbt Community Member and build systems guy.

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Forum / mail integration (was MeeGo Summit - Structured brainstorming...)

On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 10:19 +0100, Dave Neary wrote: > Hi, > > Andrew Flegg wrote: > > Personally, I prefer mailing lists (which is why it galls me to be top > > posting on this stupid BlackBerry), however the Internet's moved past > > 1996 and fora, despite all their comparitive flaws, are the m

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Forum / mail integration (was MeeGo Summit - Structured brainstorming...)

On 03/06/10 14:16, quim@nokia.com wrote: GET THE BLOODY THING FIXED! You did trim the next line where I said "Please :)" ... but OK, that didn't come off - I apologise if my poor attempt at humour offended anyone. Reggie said that Forum/Mail integration would require more server power and

Re: [MeeGo-dev] MeeGo Summit - Structured brainstorming format in the form of BOFs and Wiki Specs.

On 03/06/10 10:05, Dave Neary wrote: Hi, Dirk Hohndel wrote: On Sat, 29 May 2010 02:04:23 -0600, Andrew Flegg wrote: Firstly, this would probably be best on the forum - or meego-community at a push - as this is where the conference is being planned. Is it? That's a bummer as I am hardly eve

[MeeGo-dev] QA Proposals (was Re: Quality assurance of "stable" software: my battery drained in few hours)

On 29/05/10 17:52, Sivan Greenberg wrote: Yes, I am working on this :) Real life and bills paying can sometimes get in the way but I'm slowly going back to being fully active with MeeGo. I will send a notification to go over and review [0] once it is finished, as so far I outlined the tools that

Re: [MeeGo-dev] I have a question why is mono included in meego what legal status prevents its default include in likes of Fedora.

On 29/05/10 13:21, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: I didn't respond to the questions because it seems the other responses have already answered. As others have pointed out, Fedora not shipping Mono in their LiveCD has nothing to do with "legal issues" as was disingenuously insinuated in the original mess

Re: [MeeGo-dev] I have a question why is mono included in meego what legal status prevents its default include in likes of Fedora.

On 29/05/10 11:35, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: Hey guys, Just an FYI, but this is just a troll-attempt by the BoycottNovell trolls: http://techrights.org/2010/05/28/meego-dot-net/ " Posted question to meego developers over mono. schestowitz" Probably explains the other Mono hostility that sudde

Re: [MeeGo-dev] open development of meego

On 28/05/10 18:46, Dirk Hohndel wrote: My argument for openness won, but frankly, I'd like to know if we called this correctly - is it better to do "open early, sort it out in public" or would people prefer "get it right, on the correct domain - we'll wait for it". This way we can learn for the n

[MeeGo-dev] MeeGo.com OBS access request

Hi Anas Could you (re)open the api service for the community OBS. This service is still in closed beta so we won't be hammering on the main OBS. What information do you need? David -- "Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon once..." __

Re: [MeeGo-dev] MeeGo compliance

On 24/05/10 11:11, Jeremiah Foster wrote: On May 24, 2010, at 10:48 AM, David Greaves wrote: On 23/05/10 20:32, Graham Cobb wrote: On Wednesday 19 May 2010 18:50:01 Jeff Licquia wrote: (...) The ability to target multiple distros (or distro releases) from a single project is one of the

Re: [MeeGo-dev] MeeGo compliance

On 23/05/10 20:32, Graham Cobb wrote: On Wednesday 19 May 2010 18:50:01 Jeff Licquia wrote: There could be an issue with newer MeeGo releases, say a MeeGo 1.1 app running on a MeeGo 1.0 device. But there are other hurdles to cross if we want to support that model (what to do with new 1.1 functi

Re: [MeeGo-dev] MeeGo Packaging Policy : A process proposal

On 22/05/10 00:35, Graham Cobb wrote: David, A few questions/comments: 1) It is not clear whether this is policy for Meego core packages or for community packages (or both). I assume it is Core, as that is all that exists at the moment. And if we end up with multiple community repositories th

Re: [MeeGo-dev] MeeGo Packaging Policy : A process proposal

On 22/05/10 00:35, Graham Cobb wrote: David, A few questions/comments: 1) It is not clear whether this is policy for Meego core packages or for community packages (or both). I assume it is Core, as that is all that exists at the moment. And if we end up with multiple community repositories th

Re: [MeeGo-dev] MeeGo Packaging Policy : A process proposal

Dave Neary wrote: > Hi, > > Warren Baird wrote: >> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 3:28 PM, David Greaves wrote: >> >>> OTOH a wiki has a 'talk' page; the ability to trivially host 'draft' >>> versions of >>> pages nearby; email noti

Re: [MeeGo-dev] MeeGo Packaging Policy : A process proposal

Warren Baird wrote: > Seems to me that using a wiki to host a formally controlled policy > document doesn't make a lot of sense - seems like we aren't using the > right tools for the job. > > I suspect that the packaging policy isn't the only place this might come up. > > Should formal policies b

[MeeGo-dev] MeeGo Packaging Policy : A process proposal

guidelines is actually a bug in a package (or the guidelines). * At the moment the wiki policy simply reflects 'random' contributions (eg: some of which I, David Greaves, unilaterally inserted); this is not appropriate for a policy document. Policy: * The MeeGo packaging p

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Questions for TSG regarding big reveals and impact on open development

Excellent post Carsten; thank you. Carsten Munk wrote: > So, this is primarily an e-mail to ask some questions to the two > members of the TSG, that I think would not be sufficiently covered in > a TSG meeting and answers might be better suited for the e-mail form. > I think there are others who c

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Btrfs as default file system

Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On 5/12/2010 12:22, Greg KH wrote: >> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 01:09:16PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote: >>> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 02:00:46PM +0300, Ameya Palande wrote: Btrfs is highly experimental, and THE DISK FORMAT IS NOT YET FINALIZED. You should say N here u

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Btrfs as default file system

Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On 5/11/2010 4:00, Ameya Palande wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I wanted to know why Btrfs is selected as default file system for MeeGo. > > we made a positive choice for btrfs for a list of reasons > * BTRFS supports on-disk compression, giving both a smaller footprint > (factory p

Re: [MeeGo-dev] List of MeeGo compatible devices

Robin Burchell wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 9:50 AM, David Greaves wrote: >> Quim Gil wrote: >>> Hi, erkanyilmaz start this useful wiki page >>> >>> http://wiki.meego.com/Compatible_devices_with_MeeGo >>> >>> Please help completing it.

Re: [MeeGo-dev] List of MeeGo compatible devices

Quim Gil wrote: > Hi, erkanyilmaz start this useful wiki page > > http://wiki.meego.com/Compatible_devices_with_MeeGo > > Please help completing it. "Is compatible with MeeGo?" is one of > the FAQ from people with a mobile device (mainly netbooks) or thinking > of buying one. You mean like

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Community repositories kicking off

JD Zheng wrote: > It is another reason for providing a community OBS to allow a > *massively* easier > core code development processes: > > * install/setup osc/build for Debian/Suse/Ubuntu/Redhat/MeeGo/... > * "osc co Trunk package && cd Trunk/package" > * "osc build" >

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Community repositories kicking off

JD Zheng wrote: > Hi, > > A few questions: > 1) Is this community OBS used for "community" app only? Or it can be > used for testing/patching "official" MeeGo packages? Good question. I would expect a similar policy to the openSuse service which is "anything OSS". I have no idea if we'll have an

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Let's discuss the "build.meego.com open"

Jeremiah Foster wrote: > On Apr 30, 2010, at 11:31 AM, David Greaves wrote: > >> David Greaves wrote: >>> Jeremiah Foster wrote: >>>> On Apr 30, 2010, at 9:59 AM, David Greaves wrote: >>>> >>>>> MeeGo core OBS will not be open to &q

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Let's discuss the "build.meego.com open"

David Greaves wrote: > Jeremiah Foster wrote: >> On Apr 30, 2010, at 9:59 AM, David Greaves wrote: >> >>> MeeGo core OBS will not be open to "any user"; invitation only based on >>> merit. >> >> Please define 'merit' in clear, exp

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Let's discuss the "build.meego.com open"

Jeremiah Foster wrote: > On Apr 30, 2010, at 9:59 AM, David Greaves wrote: > >> MeeGo core OBS will not be open to "any user"; invitation only based on >> merit. > > > Please define 'merit' in clear, explicit terms in a public forum so that >

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Let's discuss the "build.meego.com open"

An Yang wrote: > hi Greg, > > This email maybe off topic, but I think it's meaningful for meego build > process. > If somebody won't see it, I will talk to Greg in private email. The mailing list is fine > OBS has two means: > 1. OBS as a software running on build.opensuse.org, it's open or not,

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Let's discuss the "build.meego.com open"

I'm with Greg KH on pushing the meme: A: No. Q: Should I include quotations after my reply? JD Zheng wrote: > Hi Tero, I'm not Tero > Questions regarding OBS: > -- Does the core/community OBS support MeeGo only or it will support > multiple distributions like OpenSUSE OBS? This is something to d

Re: [MeeGo-dev] how to start developing on MeeGo?

Graham Cobb wrote: > On Tuesday 27 April 2010 00:30:50 Graham Cobb wrote: >> I think I have found the answer to my own question. The following two >> repositories seem to be the ones: >> >> http://repo.meego.com/MeeGo/devel/trunk/repo/ia32/os/ >> http://repo.meego.com/MeeGo/devel/extra/repo/ia32/o

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Repository Working Group - next steps

Clint Christopher Cañada wrote: > +1 from me. It looks like the best term so far. > > On 4/28/2010 1:15 PM, Quim Gil wrote: >> >> ext Graham Cobb wrote: >> >>> why don't we call this the "Community Repositories Team". >>> >> +1 Quim Gil wrote: > understands it. ;) "Surrounds" is indee

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Repository Working Group - next steps

Quim Gil wrote: > Hi, > > ext David Greaves wrote: >> quim@nokia.com wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think we have a mismatch between the name and the content. How to >>> call this? Names carried from maemo.org or moblin.org would be >>> &

Re: [MeeGo-dev] can't install grub when installing meego system into the hard disk by liveusb.

Zhang, Austin wrote: > Meego didn't use grub as below said. If you are partitioning _manually_, > please don't format '/' as ext3 instead as btrfs, and please have a separated > '/boot' formatted as ext3. Be careful with btrfs still. df: /dev/root 920M 651M 269M 71% / du -shx /

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Repository Working Group - next steps

Joy Andrews wrote: > Call them what they are! Applications, Music, Movies...a la iTunes. I > think that Apple, as the largest store of it’s kind, has somewhat set > the standards in naming for users. > > Sorry if I’m misunderstanding - just jumping into the conversation. Somewhat :) http://lis

Re: [MeeGo-dev] Repository Working Group - next steps

the name is actually quite important; now we almost have the scope we can address it. Personally, I like "Surrounds". I find "Downloads" a little mundane and non-inspirational? Surrounds clearly says "not core" and is nicely embracing and quite positive :) > David Greav

Re: [MeeGo-dev] [PATCH] Fix ARM N900 build

Arjan van de Ven wrote: >> +n900: kernel.spec.in series makespec.pl >> +@touch N900; >> +@perl makespec.pl< kernel.spec.in> kernel-n900.spec ; > > why make a separate spec like this? sounds completely unneeded to me > for arm it will only build the n900 anyway right now > >> -tmp-ar

[MeeGo-dev] Repository Working Group - next steps

So it's been a while since the TSG meeting when the RWG was proposed [1]; not a lot of discussion has arisen naturally (not surprising, there's not a lot for the community to build around yet). So maybe we can review what we think will be needed. I think two main issues were raised: [2] * Is a WG

Re: [MeeGo-dev] MeeGo Security

Ware, Ryan R wrote: > For the moment, I believe we should be less formal although as the community > grows I can definitely see the call for a formal working group. Like this one: http://wiki.meego.com/Security_interest_group oh, wait, I just made that :) > I plan on reviewing security aspects

Re: [MeeGo-dev] MeeGo Security

Sebastian Lauwers wrote: > > Any security can be broken. I could go on and rant about how even with > hardware tokens generating an OTP that unlocks a smartcard which > contains the certificates used to encrypt a connection and > authenticate a user to a remote server can be compromised. It takes

  1   2   >