Peter, Please reply about my suggestion. How do you think about MIC1 handling in the future?
Zhu, Peter J wrote: > Mitsutaka Amano wrote on Friday, February 06, 2009 8:55 AM >> Rusty, >> >> I don't understand why will you only invest in MIC2. >> As you said, MIC2 is easy to using. But MIC2 cannot create >> the development environment for mobiln 1 or 2. >> >> My suggestion is MIC1 should maintain in the future. MIC1 >> shouldn't be >> legacy software. >> MIC1 and MIC2 are written of python. so It's possible to >> merge to MIC1 >> from function of MIC2. But MIC1 have to implement flxible >> more. >> >> I think their handling in the following. >> >> + MIC1 -------------------------------+ >>> Development Environment Kit (DEK) | >>> Development software and testing | >>> Create moblin1 images | >>> | >>> + MIC2 -----------------------+ | >>>> Create only moblin2 images | | >>>> the Subset of MIC1 | | >>> +-----------------------------+ | >> +-------------------------------------+ >> > > MIC2 provides many variants of what you called DEK including KVM image, VMDK > image and loop image. And soon MIC2 will have capability of transfering a > modified KVM/VMDK image into a live image that can be transferred a real > device. > > Peter _______________________________________________ Moblin dev Mailing List [email protected] To manage or unsubscribe from this mailing list visit: https://lists.moblin.org/mailman/listinfo/dev or your user account on http://moblin.org once logged in. For more information on the Moblin Developer Mailing lists visit: http://moblin.org/community/mailing-lists
