It means that contributors could get a more recent gonk version. Going forward we could potentially do this once a month or so or whenever the gonk layer updates. (After testing)
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Mihai Barbat <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 8:26 PM, Naoki Hirata <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Specifically for the Flame device, I am currently blocked by >> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1237127 in order to make >> FOTA possible for Flame. The goal is to supply T2M with a FOTA build , >> have the host the build and then change our FOTA servers to point to that >> FOTA build for any build lower than it and then any other newer build can >> be FOTA'ed by that base build. >> >> This is in the works. Technically T2M is hosting the build so this will >> resolve any legal issues of distribution. (Process was reviewed by our >> legal team and OK'ed). >> > > what will be the gains of this update? > > >> >> Regards, >> Naoki >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Alexandre Lissy <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Le 11/01/2016 14:39, [email protected] a écrit : >>> > Le lundi 11 janvier 2016 11:56:23 UTC+1, Alexandre Lissy a écrit : >>> >> >>> >> And if you look carefully, that is not being redistributed from >>> >> Mozilla's servers, but from T2M ones. >>> > >>> > I didn't noticed it! Now it's clear that "not being redistributed" has >>> to be understood from Mozilla's point of view, not as "not being >>> redistributed at all". I didn't catch it beforehand. >>> > >>> >> Flashing new base system from T2M >>> > >>> > OK. So does it mean that Gonk upgrade can only be initiated by >>> manufacturers? And then Mozilla takes on the work to adapt Gecko/Gaia code >>> to the updated Gonk API, independently of the FxOS version? >>> >>> At some point, given this is closed source and not in the hands of >>> Mozilla, I see no other way than the manufacturer/OEM doing that. >>> >>> > >>> >>> Is mixing files coming from the same Android "version" (KK 4.4.2 in >>> the present case) but not necessary the same Android "build" (KVT49L vs >>> KOT49H) allowed (there's no problem with exported symbols in kernel modules >>> for example)? >>> > >>> > So, is a locally built KOT49H kernel able to interact with KVT49L >>> binary blobs/proprietary firmware provided by the manufacturer (T2M in the >>> present case)? >>> >>> That depends on the differences ... I think there is no change to >>> interfaces with minor releases so it should be okay. >>> >>> > >>> > Thanks for the clarifications anyway. >>> > >>> > Émeric >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > dev-fxos mailing list >>> > [email protected] >>> > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos >>> > >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dev-fxos mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dev-fxos mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos >> >> >
_______________________________________________ dev-fxos mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos
