date:20090821

Re: Launcher 0.30 release

2009-08-21 Thread Denis Johnson

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:49 AM, c_c cchan...@yahoo.com wrote:


 Hi,
  Well, here's the latest release.

 http://n2.nabble.com/file/n3480288/launcher_0.30_arm.ipk
 launcher_0.30_arm.ipk


I guess this is a feature request. How hard would it be to optionally allow
finger swiping from category to category ? That would also eliminate the
need for the category tray/shelf at the bottom and free up some space,
although some indication of current category name would probably be useful.

regards Denis
___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Launcher 0.30 release

2009-08-21 Thread Rui Miguel Silva Seabra

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 08:28:51PM -0500, c_c wrote:
 Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
  My veredict: not yet ready for reliable use, but much better than
  illume-launcher
  feature-wise :) 
  
   Can you tell me the problems you faced?

One is quite predictable: it's still way too slow on launch.

Another is that many/most icons wouldn't show up.

Another is that it they seemed too glued up to the bottom, if possible
they could try to be more or less spread around, or at least follow
some grid, which would make them easier to point  shoot at.

Also while it doesn't use opimd api and accesses sqlite dbs directly, it
may even cause some nasty concurrency issues, even though you assure it
won't, I'm quite afraid of the consequences if you happen to be wrong.

I'm looking forward to try out the next version which first uses opim
functionality :)

Congratulations, and keep up the good work!

Rui

___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: [ALL] New showroom for Openmoko apps

2009-08-21 Thread Michael Pilgermann

Dear all,

maybe, another perspective here from an apps developer's point of view:

I do believe, that we need a proper / nice directory of applications, which
users may browse through. I am aware of the following repositories right now:

- openmoko wiki - applications (I think, it is a good starting point if you
look for something; but could be somehow more fashined - and up to date)
- opkg.org - good for uploading (or linking) releases - though, I never used it
as a repository (somehow I didn't feel it's a proper rep)
- openmoko projects - from my view a good development plattform, which is doing
the job (it is just not too fancy - but, come on, we are developers)
- community updates
- new: SHR manual (also telling me some bits and pieces about software)
- *** did I forget something? probably I did ***

So, when doing a release right now - I have to update 4 pages already (openmoko
projects, opkg.org, community updates and SHR manual), because each of them
comes with its own installation instructions (the wiki is rather static).

What I want to point out first of all:

* We do not need another plattform ON TOP of all this *

We should rather go and integrate stuff. For me, openmoko projects server
(gforge) is a very good starting point for that:
* source code management (svn)
* file releases
* bug tracking, feature requests
* news support
* and WIKI functionality

I think, we should really keep this as a basis.

But I think, it is not a good plattform for people to browse projects. There is
a point of establishing something inviting* here. However, I would suggest the
following points:

* Make it a really simple, good-looking overview of applications to browse
through
* Keep Openmoko projects as development repository - do not duplicate stuff, we
have in there already (put links instead)
* Make it possible to easily install applications (simple instructions as given
in opkg.org - so we wouldn't need this plattform anymore)
* Do not maintain another list on openmoko wiki - instead put a link there to
this new directory
* Whenever you present information about a project (e.g. community newsletter
or user manuals) provide a link to the app inside this plattform instead of
detailling installation instructions (they might change from one version to the
next)
* Support community input (comments, maybe voting)
* Again: Make it beautiful and simple.

For the packaging issue - I really like the idea of boosting the process to
integrate into reps / distributions. (this would btw. ease the process of
installation).
However, documentation on how to do this is really rare. One could probably
find a way to create a bb file (and also further required files) - but the way
on

* how to get this into a rep. / distribtution? *

is really not transparent. Whom do I need to contact? Do I have to file an
issue somewhere? The Openmoko wiki is not really helpful about this topic.

Lasts words:
I wouldn't spend too much time when bringing up a SHOWROOM on tricky, technical
stuff. Just a plain, simple, beautiful web site (supporting categories and
distributions is nice I think) and - at least for now - manual installation
instructions.
I think, every OM user is able to run 'opkg install APPNAME'. It would be a
great step forward, if deps are resolved and so on ...

Very last words:
Please do not put anything up, when there is no time / resources to maintain
it. It would be a shame to waste so much efforts

Michael

Original-Nachricht
Datum: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:04:49 +0200
Von: Sebastian Krzyszkowiak seba.d...@gmail.com
An: List for Openmoko community discussion community@lists.openmoko.org
Betreff: Re: [ALL] New showroom for Openmoko apps

On 8/20/09, Risto H. Kurppa ri...@kurppa.fi wrote:
Hi there!

ABSTRACT
I think a new showroom for community created application is needed to
boost the development and help users to get to know new apps easily.
Now we have opkg.org to show distribute the apps created by the
community for Freerunner.

SETUP
opkg.org has allowed us to easily see what apps are new in the
community, the comment system has alowed us to get in touch with the
developer/packager and we've seen nice screeshots there to encourage
us to try apps. Also the release of opkg.org repository was great!

But:
opkg.org is has many outdated and broken packages with missing
dependencies
opkg.org doesn't separate packages for different distributions
opkg.org doesn't share the source codes as per GPL
opkg.org code can be changed only by the main developer
opkg.org developer doesn't seem to be working on it any more (since
April)
opkg.org developer is not an easy fish to catch

87 matches

Mail list logo