On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:55:17AM +0200, Dave Neary wrote: > That should be, "In theory, allowing dependencies will reduce the > average space used when installing 100 apps, but it does not give a > decent way to evaluate the maximum space needed for 100 apps".
IMHO this is a "how long is a piece of string" question. App sizes vary so much that it is impossible to evaluate this in a meaningful way. As a trivial example, passing the Installed-Size: headers from Fremantle extras user-visible packages through Statistics::Basic gives: Pkgs: 562 Min: 8 Max: 200468 Mean: 3568.21 Mode: 140.00 Median: 450 StdDev: 13030.97 (sizes in KiB, dependencies ignored). Whichever number you pick as "average space" the result is going to be misleading in most real-world cases. Now consider that Ovi store contains even larger apps (IIRC Sygic Mobile Maps is in the region of 2GB) and it becomes ever more hopeless. The ability to market a device as able to hold 100 (or whatever number) apps seems like a terribly misguided goal. Are there even any real world devices advertised in this manner? On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:24:06AM -0700, Skarpness, Mark wrote: > No - that is a different problem. If compliance says that compliant > apps can have external dependencies, then every compliant device MUST > support those dependencies and ensure they are available to every > device. That is the burden we are debating. Ok, external dependencies is one issue. I appreciate that there are business reasons why arbitrary inter-repository dependencies are "hard", but can we at least allow non-core dependencies from the /same/ repository? This would allow developers to package their own stuff properly, and also make MeeGo Extras/Surrounds compliant. Surely a self-consistent repository shouldn't be too much for most app store vendors to handle? On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:09:18AM -0700, Skarpness, Mark wrote: > > As it does: http://wiki.meego.com/images/MeeGo-Compliance-Spec-1.0.80.8.pdf > > line 231/232 > I did not catch that in the draft - thanks for pointing it out. Also (as pointed out before) lines 157-158: Application packages SHALL “require” (in RPM terminology) all system and third party components that are necessary for them to run. > That will be removed in the next rev...this is the first draft. Can we please hold on that until this discussion reaches some conclusion? On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 07:44:06PM +0100, David Greaves wrote: > Can we agree our goals? > > I think we need to achieve 2 things: > * permit the open-source development model to work for compliant applications > * define the spec in a way to minimise the imposed burden on vendors IMHO we shouldn't approach this as an open-source/proprietary (or community/commercial, whatever) split. I'm pretty sure that many commercial software houses exist that aren't ignorant of good software development and packaging practices (even if it often seems that way). A "no non-core dependencies" policy *does* burden those developers who want to package their own runtime dependencies separately (as well they should if they have more than one app using them). L. _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list MeeGo-dev@meego.com http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
