On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Skarpness, Mark <mark.skarpn...@intel.com>wrote:
> Allowing applications to have arbitrary external dependencies that are > resolved at install time adds a great deal of complexity and uncertainty for > a device manufacturer (substitute "MeeGo software stack provider" for > "device manufacturer" if you wish). > > I want to create a simple "contract" between the device manufacturer and > the application developer: the device manufacturer promises to provide a > defined set of packages and the application promises to install and run > correctly using only those packages. Perfectly understandable. But (always that but) the question is if that is the ONLY possible "contract". Again, it doesn't matter how this, extras or surrounds, compliance is called, as long as the name itself is not grounds for exclusion from the MeeGo ecosystem. Since it would obviously not be part of the MeeGo device compliance itself, vendors can freely omit this option if it's too much for them (and then deal with the flak of users facing the reduced number of apps). One of the greatest advantages of Linux is the extendability and huge repository of existing code and documentation. I highly doubt developers/publishers will have qualms about leveraging that and making huge bloated packages if they are denied proper repository/dependency support (existing proprietary linux apps are a prime example of this), which in turn means that such a rigid limit - despite the best of intentions - might not really solve much, just transfer a problem from one domain to another (from a repository QA/availablility issue to a package QA/availability issue). Best regards, Attila
_______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list MeeGo-dev@meego.com http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
