Quim Gil <quim....@nokia.com> writes: > Hi, please keep the "MeeGo compliance" part in the subject of this spin > off thread - thanks! > > Ibrahim from The Linux Foundation is driving the MeeGo compliance > definition. Hopefully we can have a first version of the guidelines > published soon, currently under private drafting and review to sync > legal, technical, marketing and resourcing aspects. > > ext Cornelius Hald wrote: >> So how far may companies go if the differentiate the UI? What is allowed >> to still be called Meego or Meego-Compatible? Is it only theming or can >> they provide their own UI framework? > > The main objective behind the MeeGo compliance is to guarantee > binary compatibility for applications across > multiple MeeGo products. All the rest (definition of the official MeeGo > API, architecture...) is a consequence of this basic goal.
Does it mean that an OSV can merge its own patches on top of the source packages from the reference MeeGo repository? For example, Mandriva as a distribution editor is interested in maintaining a common set of source rpm packages for both its classical "Mandriva Linux" distribution and its MeeGo-based distribution, to factorize maintenance. Can we be called MeeGo-compliant as long as userspace is ABI compliant, even if we have our own patches in kernel/udev/qt/dbus/...? Thanks -- Olivier Blin (blino) - Mandriva _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list MeeGo-dev@meego.com http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
