On 7/26/07, Carlos Guerreiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > As long as Nokia works in the current, essentially forked, mode, > > nothing will happen. Nokia needs to look at the way it interacts with > > upstream projects and change. Sure it can be painful, but hiding > > behind a smoke-screen of "product program priorities" is just not > > helping to solve the real issues. > > > > > Lauri, I can see you've been away for too long and missed > some of the action ;-)
That's probably true, but I'm not afraid to raise old issues that may or may not have been 100% addressed. Worst thing that can happen is that things are actually not as bad as I thought. I'm just one voice here, I think there are enough yes-men to go around so it doesn't hurt if I object even when there was no need ;) > >>> One day we will anyway be > >>> running debian/stable with a few custom components on the tablets. > >>> > >> You mean switching back to OABI? > >> > > > > Not really =) > > This needs the current armel port to mature and be accepted to debian. > > Nokia pushing it and putting resources into it would seriously help, I > > think. So far Nokia has done next to nothing right in the distro > > > Fair enough. For the sake of presenting an argument I may push things a bit too far, but I believe that the Original Idea(TM) behind the debian choice was distorted by the product requirements and it needs to be raised again now that things have evolved. We shouldn't be afraid to throw away a lot of our custom stuff and development processes if it turns out to be slowing us down. Corporations are notoriously bad with this, we are no exception. > > maintenance area. If SB1 somehow contributed to this state of affairs > > I'm really sorry > > about it, SB2 is trying hard to change things around by removing an > > obscure layer from between the host and the target distros, hopefully > > forcing a tighter coupling of them. At least it should be possible to > > > I'm afraid things don't work like that. Alignment needs to > happen for its own sake. It just makes sense to simplify > and streamline our work and work shoulder to shoulder with > upstream and other distros. Forcing that alignment through > tools before it's there just means the tools don't get adopted. Sure, I'm not saying that SB2 will necessarily force this stuff on people, just that SB1 probably tilted the table so that it encouraged sub-optimal way of working. This is very fuzzy of course :) /lauri _______________________________________________ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
