subject:"RE\: MeeGo"


On Feb 16, 2010, at 9:59 AM, Jean-Christian de Rivaz wrote:

 Yves-Alexis Perez a écrit :
 
 Absolutely right. The success of Ubuntu and Debian have proved this.
 
 Aside of this, I am puzzled to see a project that it targeted to
 support both X86 and ARM processors without even considering the
 multiarch future. Sound crasy to me. Debian have accumulated a
 immense amount of knowledge on how to do this the right way and
 there have made many changes in the package management to handle
 multiarch. RPM packaging is completely outdated about this.

What is at issue is developers. 

Intel and Maemo want to merge their projects to gain an economy of scale. Both 
Intel and Nokia know that they have to have a neutral third party to manage the 
project, otherwise devs will feel it is 'owned' by Nokia or Intel. So they 
turned to the Linux Foundation to host repos and such. The Linux Foundation is 
also deeply involved in the Linux Standards Base which decided that to be 
compliant with the LSB you have to support RPM. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Standard_Base#Choice_of_RPM_package_format

The APT system as a whole is better than RPM. One might argue that this has 
been proven by the runaway success of Ubuntu and other deb based distros, like 
Linux Mint. The wide adoption would certainly indicate that it is more user 
friendly especially since debian has never marketed its system nor locked in 
users, as Red Hat has. (Remember Red Hat's move to paid support?)

Intel and Nokia do not care about the implementation of the package system, 
they just want revenue from app stores. The upshot from all of this is that we 
are stuck with RPM, there is no going back, and technical merits or even 
perceived technical merits do not matter. Fortunately RPM is not that hideous, 
at least for most use cases, and there are lots of tools like alien to convert 
from RPM to APT.

If you as a developer are unwilling to work for these large companies, you may 
want to seriously consider Mer - a Maemo-based distribution designed to run on 
embedded devices which is much more open than MeeGo and uses APT.

Jeremiah___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-16 Thread Yves-Alexis Perez

On 16/02/2010 10:15, Kees Jongenburger wrote:

 Hi, Debian does handle multiarch ok in repositories and such but
 wake up and look around it is not special or anything. Debian is far
 far behind when is comes to multiarch and real device support.

Multi-arch is supposed to be implemented for Squeeze (next release) and
the work as started, though some stuff is not yet decided (I can't
really say much more as it's not an easy situation and I don't know
enough about that)

 They
 only provide  unoptimized generic armv5 code
 http://www.debian.org/ports/arm/ and the way debian works (no cross
 compiling) makes it a pain to port to other platforms.

That has not much to do with multi-arch though. Cross compilation is
nice but it's not exactly required. Sure the infrastructure could be
nicer to system on chip, but it's basically a *pain* to be generic
enough if you still want to provide packages usable for everyone and
still be able to use recent features.

Cheers,
-- 
Yves-Alexis
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-16 Thread Michal Kolodziejczyk

On 16.02.2010 08:44, Martin Grimme wrote:

 I think this is the real problem about rpm here. Technically, I think
 rpm is superior to deb but Debian's apt is still unmatched as a
 package manager and the packagers do a better job (maybe because deb
 is easier to create?). I haven't used yum for years, so it might be
 better today, but back then (2004/2005), badly packaged stuff with bad
 dependencies and the utter slowness of yum drove me away from Redhat.

Mee too ;( BTW, I am using archlinux now and its pacman package manager
- it it simply beatiful compared to rpm/deb - you can create new
packages usually in no-time.
For me, both deb and rpm are poisoned by using macros: they have
similar names but different implementations across linux distributions,
or they are present in one distro and not in the other, and this is the
worst problem of RPM (and also deb, I suspect).

I was creating deb and rpm packages long time ago, but now knowing
pacman and the current state of deb/rpm packages, it is really hard to
go back :(

 I was involved in a project creating a Linux LiveCD builder based on
 Fedora for customer-customisable CDs. The user selects the
 applications she wants on the CD and the CD builder automatically
 resolves the package dependencies to build the CD. While in theory

This is what just works with pacman - see
http://larch.berlios.de/doc/larch_overview.html

I know the rpm path is already decided, just wanted to point at an
alternative simpler solution which just works.

Regards,
miko
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-16 Thread Jean-Christian de Rivaz


Kees Jongenburger a écrit :

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Jean-Christian de Rivaz j...@eclis.ch wrote:

Aside of this, I am puzzled to see a project that it targeted to
support both X86 and ARM processors without even considering the
multiarch future. Sound crasy to me. Debian have accumulated a
immense amount of knowledge on how to do this the right way and
there have made many changes in the package management to handle
multiarch. RPM packaging is completely outdated about this.


Hi, Debian does handle multiarch ok in repositories and such but
wake up and look around it is not special or anything. Debian is far
far behind when is comes to multiarch and real device support. They
only provide  unoptimized generic armv5 code
http://www.debian.org/ports/arm/ and the way debian works (no cross
compiling) makes it a pain to port to other platforms.


You have to see not only the current state but also the goal. Only
Debian will be ready for multiarch is a foreseeable future. Others
distributions have just missed the point that all the current way to
build embedded system will be obsolet soon. In the near future, there
will be no difference between your PC and you phone from the
distribution point of view. So a SDK for embedded system will be
pointless. Even the word embedded will be dropped.

It's perfectly doable to start a new armv7 port into Debian if it make
sense to do it.


now try and compare that to something like poky
http://www.pokylinux.org/


I work with SB2, OE, Buildroot and LTIB. For me there are all already
something of the past.

Regards,

Jean-Christian de Rivaz
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo, unity or fragmentation?

2010-02-16 Thread Michal Kolodziejczyk

On 16.02.2010 08:25, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
 On pon 15 lut 2010 21:49:14 CET, Pavel Rojtberg li...@rojtberg.net wrote:
 
 I guess the first MeeGo release will be
 widely based on Maemo but use rpm as packaging format.
 
 Maemo maybe is longer on a market but will rather not be a base - will rather 
 provide applications and phone stuff.
 
 In general I think the package format needs more discussion as it also
 implies a rebase of the distribution. 
 
 There is no space for discussion - we are community not company. Moblin 
 already has OBS working for building software and they decided about using 
 Fedora as base over 18 months ago (used Ubuntu before).

The more precise way would be to say that moblin is based on the RPM
format (used also by Fedora) than using Fedora as a base. Check out
the FAQ:
http://moblin.org/documentation/moblin-overview/faq

 Up to now Maemo was happily
 syncing from Debian, which obviously wont work with rpm any more.
 
 Please... Maemo was not syncing with Debian. It just took few updated 
 components from it.

So it is exactly like in Moblin+Debian/Fedora case...

 So there must be at least a HUGE advantage coming with RPM to justify
 the efford to switch.
 
 Less work for nokia on base system as Moblin provides nice working, 
 maintained one instead of bunch of random versions used in Maemo5.

There you can read about some reasons (like the ability to track the
license of a package as part of the spec file):
http://iquaid.org/2008/07/25/a-word-about-intels-moblin-and-fedora/

Regards,
miko
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo, unity or fragmentation?

2010-02-16 Thread Michal Kolodziejczyk

On 16.02.2010 08:25, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
 On pon 15 lut 2010 21:49:14 CET, Pavel Rojtberg li...@rojtberg.net wrote:
 
 I guess the first MeeGo release will be
 widely based on Maemo but use rpm as packaging format.
 
 Maemo maybe is longer on a market but will rather not be a base - will rather 
 provide applications and phone stuff.
 
 In general I think the package format needs more discussion as it also
 implies a rebase of the distribution. 
 
 There is no space for discussion - we are community not company. Moblin 
 already has OBS working for building software and they decided about using 
 Fedora as base over 18 months ago (used Ubuntu before).

The more precise way would be to say that moblin is based on the RPM
format (used also by Fedora) than using Fedora as a base. Check out
the FAQ:
http://moblin.org/documentation/moblin-overview/faq

 Up to now Maemo was happily
 syncing from Debian, which obviously wont work with rpm any more.
 
 Please... Maemo was not syncing with Debian. It just took few updated 
 components from it.

So it is exactly like in Moblin+Debian/Fedora case...

 So there must be at least a HUGE advantage coming with RPM to justify
 the efford to switch.
 
 Less work for nokia on base system as Moblin provides nice working, 
 maintained one instead of bunch of random versions used in Maemo5.

There you can read about some reasons (like the ability to track the
license of a package as part of the spec file):
http://iquaid.org/2008/07/25/a-word-about-intels-moblin-and-fedora/

Regards,
miko
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-16 Thread Luca Olivetti


En/na Jeremiah Foster ha escrit:



The APT system as a whole is better than RPM.


Apples and oranges.
You can compare apt to urpmi or dpkg to rpm.
You can't compare apt to rpm.
For me urpmi is slightly better than apt, but that's just a personal 
opinion based on my usage pattern and experience.
On the whole I'd say they're quite similar, neither is vastly better 
than the other.


Bye
--
Luca
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-16 Thread Pavel Rojtberg



  
  
Am 16.02.2010 10:16, schrieb Jeremiah Foster:

  Intel and Nokia do not care about the implementation of the
package system, they just want revenue from app stores. The
upshot from all of this is that we are stuck with RPM, there is
no going back, and technical merits or even perceived technical
merits do not matter. 

I would disagree that we are stuck with RPM. As Quim Gil posted today
Harmattan will be already called MeeGo, but still use DEB. Frankly
anything else would be lunatic of them from a technical POV.
So I think if we as a community can create enough pressure for DEB,
we can maybe keep it - there is one development cycle of time ;)

My point for doing so is that switching from DEB to RPM means
trashing the last 5 years of experience with this format/ the build
environment, which is a kind of a pointless rewrite. Besides there
is currently a large momentum behind it (Ubuntu, Chrome OS). Working
against it is suicide ;)
  

___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-16 Thread Christopher Intemann

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Pavel Rojtberg li...@rojtberg.net wrote:

 Besides there is currently a large momentum behind it (Ubuntu, Chrome OS).
 Working against it is suicide ;)

 Well, in my experience Chrome OS is rather a closed platform which is not
meant for installing additional packages but rather go for web-based
applications. I wouldn't rely on that, nor would I bet on Android, which is
barely a fully functional Linux except for the Kernel.
Cheers,
 Chris
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo


On Feb 16, 2010, at 2:12 PM, Pavel Rojtberg wrote:

 Am 16.02.2010 10:16, schrieb Jeremiah Foster:
 Intel and Nokia do not care about the implementation of the package system, 
 they just want revenue from app stores. The upshot from all of this is that 
 we are stuck with RPM, there is no going back, and technical merits or even 
 perceived technical merits do not matter.
 I would disagree that we are stuck with RPM. As Quim Gil posted today 
 Harmattan will be already called MeeGo, but still use DEB. Frankly anything 
 else would be lunatic of them from a technical POV.
 So I think if we as a community can create enough pressure for DEB, we can 
 maybe keep it - there is one development cycle of time ;)

I highly doubt the Linux Foundation is going to go back on the Linux Standards 
Base and use .debs, but I do like your optimism. :)

 My point for doing so is that switching from DEB to RPM means trashing the 
 last 5 years of experience with this format/ the build environment, which 
 is a kind of a pointless rewrite.  Besides there is currently a large 
 momentum behind it (Ubuntu, Chrome OS). Working against it is suicide ;)


I think Chrome OS is also rpm based, and I also don't think Chrome OS gets a 
lot of downloads, at least compared to Ubuntu.

Frankly, it is suicide not to switch to rpm. And I have much more to lose with 
the transition than you! :)

Jeremiah (current maemo debmaster)


___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

RPM Vs. Deb (Was Re: MeeGo)

2010-02-16 Thread Fathi Boudra

That's pure speculation but it's the only rationale I found so far
about the rpm choice.

Quoting from a lwn.net comment:

---
reference: http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS2068665492.html:
Hohndel was quoted as saying that the move to Fedora was largely a
technical decision based on the desire to adopt RPM (Red Hat Package
Manager) for package management instead of Ubuntu's Debian DEB
extension. RPM offers the advantage of containing license information,
Hohndel was said to have noted, thereby enabling developers to create
collections of software by license type or exclude software by license
type.
---
reference: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=Nj...
One of the examples cited by Dirk was the ability for RPMs to easily
identify the license of packages and being able to build an environment
including or excluding a particular license type.
---

Cheers,

Fathi
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-16 Thread Stuart Anderson


On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Jeremiah Foster wrote:



On Feb 16, 2010, at 2:12 PM, Pavel Rojtberg wrote:


Am 16.02.2010 10:16, schrieb Jeremiah Foster:

Intel and Nokia do not care about the implementation of the package system, 
they just want revenue from app stores. The upshot from all of this is that we 
are stuck with RPM, there is no going back, and technical merits or even 
perceived technical merits do not matter.

I would disagree that we are stuck with RPM. As Quim Gil posted today Harmattan 
will be already called MeeGo, but still use DEB. Frankly anything else would be 
lunatic of them from a technical POV.
So I think if we as a community can create enough pressure for DEB, we can 
maybe keep it - there is one development cycle of time ;)


I highly doubt the Linux Foundation is going to go back on the Linux Standards 
Base and use .debs, but I do like your optimism. :)


Not that the LSB only specified the RPM package format. This was done because
most distributions had a way of handling RPM packages (Debian uses alien).

The LSB does NOT mandate that the distro itself has to use RPM, only that it
be capable of correclty installing an application packaged with RPM. Debian
is LSB compliant, so any other .deb based distro should be capable of doing
the same.

Wanting to be LSB conforming does not imply that a distro must be RPM based.



Stuart

Stuart R. Anderson   ander...@netsweng.com
Network  Software Engineering   http://www.netsweng.com/
1024D/37A79149:  0791 D3B8 9A4C 2CDC A31F
 BD03 0A62 E534 37A7 9149
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo


On Feb 16, 2010, at 3:00 PM, Stuart Anderson wrote:

 On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Jeremiah Foster wrote:
 
 I highly doubt the Linux Foundation is going to go back on the Linux 
 Standards Base and use .debs, but I do like your optimism. :)
 
 Not that the LSB only specified the RPM package format. This was done because
 most distributions had a way of handling RPM packages (Debian uses alien).
 
 The LSB does NOT mandate that the distro itself has to use RPM, only that it
 be capable of correclty installing an application packaged with RPM. Debian
 is LSB compliant, so any other .deb based distro should be capable of doing
 the same.
 
 Wanting to be LSB conforming does not imply that a distro must be RPM based.

Of course you are right. But be honest, do you really think these two companies 
are going to expend effort on supporting an apt based package manager? Do you 
think they are going to document using apt with rpms? Do you think they will 
advise new users and their own internal developers to use debs instead of rpm? 

I think bringing in a bunch of apt tools to support users who want to manage 
the software on their system is a worthwhile goal, and might end up improving 
both packaging systems, but I am a bit sanguine about official support for 
apt.

Jeremiah

___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: RPM Vs. Deb (Was Re: MeeGo)

2010-02-16 Thread Jean-Christian de Rivaz


Fathi Boudra a écrit :

That's pure speculation but it's the only rationale I found so far
about the rpm choice.

Quoting from a lwn.net comment:

---
reference: http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS2068665492.html:
Hohndel was quoted as saying that the move to Fedora was largely a
technical decision based on the desire to adopt RPM (Red Hat Package
Manager) for package management instead of Ubuntu's Debian DEB
extension. RPM offers the advantage of containing license information,
Hohndel was said to have noted, thereby enabling developers to create
collections of software by license type or exclude software by license
type.
---
reference: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=Nj...
One of the examples cited by Dirk was the ability for RPMs to easily
identify the license of packages and being able to build an environment
including or excluding a particular license type.
---


This is pointless. Debian package can contain license information if
you want to. Please read the chapter 5.7 User-defined fields:
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html

Adding just a XBS-License: line in each package control file do not
justify to lose 5 years of work.

Regards,

Jean-Christian de Rivaz
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-16 Thread Stuart Anderson


On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Jeremiah Foster wrote:



On Feb 16, 2010, at 3:00 PM, Stuart Anderson wrote:


On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Jeremiah Foster wrote:


I highly doubt the Linux Foundation is going to go back on the Linux Standards 
Base and use .debs, but I do like your optimism. :)


Not that the LSB only specified the RPM package format. This was done because
most distributions had a way of handling RPM packages (Debian uses alien).

The LSB does NOT mandate that the distro itself has to use RPM, only that it
be capable of correclty installing an application packaged with RPM. Debian
is LSB compliant, so any other .deb based distro should be capable of doing
the same.

Wanting to be LSB conforming does not imply that a distro must be RPM based.


Of course you are right. But be honest, do you really think these two companies 
are going to expend effort on supporting an apt based package manager? Do you 
think they are going to document using apt with rpms? Do you think they will 
advise new users and their own internal developers to use debs instead of rpm?


Absolutely not. This is clearly a case of these 3 entities serving their own
interests over those of the community. I just wanted to point out that any
reasoning based on because the LSB says so was invalid.


Stuart

Stuart R. Anderson   ander...@netsweng.com
Network  Software Engineering   http://www.netsweng.com/
1024D/37A79149:  0791 D3B8 9A4C 2CDC A31F
 BD03 0A62 E534 37A7 9149
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-16 Thread Pavel Rojtberg



  
  
Am 16.02.2010 14:36, schrieb Jeremiah Foster:

  
I highly doubt the Linux Foundation is going to go back on
  the Linux Standards Base and use .debs, but I do like your
  optimism. :)
  

actually I only care what the MeeGo version will use that is
supposed to run on future Nokia handhelds. The LSB is free to
recommend whatever they want - and as others pointed already out the
standard does not say your distribution has to be RPM based ;)
I think Chrome OS is also rpm based, and I also don't
  think Chrome OS gets a lot of downloads, at least compared to
  Ubuntu.
Chrome OS is Ubuntu
  based, which is from the technical POV a very good decision -
but you can expect that from Google.


  Frankly, it is suicide not to switch to rpm.
  

please explain that. I used this phrase as switching to rpm means
working against Google and Canonical, which on their own have a much
better expertise than either Nokia or Intel.

I think I will start a wiki page and a brainstorm vote, for keeping
DEBs and to collect arguments pro/ contra.
  

___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo


On Feb 16, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Pavel Rojtberg wrote:

 Am 16.02.2010 14:36, schrieb Jeremiah Foster:
 I highly doubt the Linux Foundation is going to go back on the Linux 
 Standards Base and use .debs, but I do like your optimism. :)
 actually I only care what the MeeGo version will use that is supposed to run 
 on future Nokia handhelds. The LSB is free to recommend whatever they want - 
 and as others pointed already out the standard does not say your distribution 
 has to be RPM based ;)

No, but the LSB said you have to support installing from rpm and building rpms 
is the shortest path to doing that. 

 I think Chrome OS is also rpm based, and I also don't think Chrome OS gets a 
 lot of downloads, at least compared to Ubuntu.
 Chrome OS is Ubuntu based, which is from the technical POV a very good 
 decision - but you can expect that from Google.

Wow, cool. Didn't know that.
 
 Frankly, it is suicide not to switch to rpm.
 please explain that.

Simply because I don't think most people care - they just want it to work. And 
many will just go ahead and make rpms and be done with it. Meanwhile you'll 
have to spend time trying to convince people not to, and this seems like a 
waste. You're just discussing what color to paint the bike shed, and while this 
is a popular pastime, it is kinda unproductive.

 I used this phrase as switching to rpm means working against Google and 
 Canonical, which on their own have a much better expertise than either Nokia 
 or Intel.
 
 I think I will start a wiki page and a brainstorm vote, for keeping DEBs and 
 to collect arguments pro/ contra.

Good idea. 


Jeremiah___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-16 Thread Thomas Tanner

On 16.02.10 17:18, Pavel Rojtberg wrote:
 actually I only care what the MeeGo version will use that is supposed to
 run on future Nokia handhelds.
 Frankly, it is suicide not to switch to rpm.

you mean all .deb based distributions are doomed to fail??

 I think I will start a wiki page and a brainstorm vote, for keeping DEBs
 and to collect arguments pro/ contra.

according to Quim http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?p=529073
Harmattan is going to stay DEB based, despite being the first MeeGo
implementation on Nokia devices. This is IMHO good news.
Now we only need to convince them to stick to it even after Harmattan...

-- 
Thomas Tanner --
email: tan...@gmx.de
GnuPG: 1024/5924D4DD
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo


On Feb 16, 2010, at 5:27 PM, Thomas Tanner wrote:

 On 16.02.10 17:18, Pavel Rojtberg wrote:
 actually I only care what the MeeGo version will use that is supposed to
 run on future Nokia handhelds.
 Frankly, it is suicide not to switch to rpm.
 
 you mean all .deb based distributions are doomed to fail??

Heavens no!! I strongly feel the opposite, that rpm distros are doomed to fail. 
debs have wider adoption and have solved lots of problems already, rpms are 
becoming the corporate preference, not the developer or user preference. But 
for this project, MeeGo, the rpm is going to be the default format. It seems 
silly if you want to get your software into MeeGo to spend too much time 
arguing because I think people will not change - certainly not the Linux 
Foundation who host the repos, wiki, etc.
 
 I think I will start a wiki page and a brainstorm vote, for keeping DEBs
 and to collect arguments pro/ contra.
 
 according to Quim http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?p=529073
 Harmattan is going to stay DEB based, despite being the first MeeGo
 implementation on Nokia devices. This is IMHO good news.
 Now we only need to convince them to stick to it even after Harmattan...

I would _love_ to see that happen.

Jeremiah
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-16 Thread Luca De Cicco

I foresaw this was coming, the religion^W packaging war... I guess
quite anybody is fed up with
this kind of  discussion.

That would be more interesting discussing real details, for instance
this is just come to my mind:

How meebo will manage very different devices (for one different CPUs,
architectures, screen resolutions,
screen types)?

It's simple to design a product targeting just one or few hardware
devices (see maemo, Mac Os X),
but it becomes really complicated when you are targeting very
different hardware devices.


Cheers,
Luca


On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Jeremiah Foster
jerem...@jeremiahfoster.com wrote:

 On Feb 16, 2010, at 5:27 PM, Thomas Tanner wrote:

 On 16.02.10 17:18, Pavel Rojtberg wrote:
 actually I only care what the MeeGo version will use that is supposed to
 run on future Nokia handhelds.
 Frankly, it is suicide not to switch to rpm.

 you mean all .deb based distributions are doomed to fail??

 Heavens no!! I strongly feel the opposite, that rpm distros are doomed to 
 fail. debs have wider adoption and have solved lots of problems already, rpms 
 are becoming the corporate preference, not the developer or user preference. 
 But for this project, MeeGo, the rpm is going to be the default format. It 
 seems silly if you want to get your software into MeeGo to spend too much 
 time arguing because I think people will not change - certainly not the Linux 
 Foundation who host the repos, wiki, etc.

 I think I will start a wiki page and a brainstorm vote, for keeping DEBs
 and to collect arguments pro/ contra.

 according to Quim http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?p=529073
 Harmattan is going to stay DEB based, despite being the first MeeGo
 implementation on Nokia devices. This is IMHO good news.
 Now we only need to convince them to stick to it even after Harmattan...

 I would _love_ to see that happen.

 Jeremiah
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-16 Thread Pavel Rojtberg


 Am 16.02.2010 17:31, schrieb Jeremiah Foster:

according to Quim http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?p=529073
Harmattan is going to stay DEB based, despite being the first MeeGo
implementation on Nokia devices. This is IMHO good news.
Now we only need to convince them to stick to it even after Harmattan...

I would _love_ to see that happen.

then contribute here:
http://wiki.maemo.org/DebForMeeGo

unfortunately I am short on time to answer in full length...
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo-Mailinglist Merge (MMM)

2010-02-16 Thread Yves-Alexis Perez

On 15/02/2010 18:42, Andre Klapper wrote:
 Am Montag, den 15.02.2010, 18:25 +0100 schrieb Max:
 both mailinglists will be disabled, and merged into the megoo mailinglist

 Right? :-P
 
 No? :-P
 
 When? !
 
 *If* it happens: When it's time to do so.
 
 Maemo and Moblin both coexist right now and there is no need to pollute
 each project with questions specific to the other platform respectively.
 

There's a Meego list at http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev

Cheers,
-- 
Yves-Alexis
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-15 Thread Johan Helsingius

Jeremiah Foster wrote:

 Intel and Nokia collaboration: http://meego.com/

Right, sounds like maemo will be merged into meego.

Julf
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-15 Thread Luca De Cicco

Sorry I didn't cc the list.

I guess that the follow ups of this story will be very interesting.
For starters,
MeeGo claims to target automotive, where Intel has a very thin market
share (if any).
Will Intel bend to ARM for the development of MeeGo? Except for
netbooks that ship
Atom CPUs all the other MeeGo targets seem to be ARM devices.

Any thoughts?

Luca

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Johan Helsingius j...@julf.com wrote:
 Luca,

 So maemo-as-we-know will disappear and will reborn under the name of
 MeeGo?

 Well, disappear probably, but sounds like parts of the maemo effort
 will be carried over into meego.

 Does this mean that maemo-as-we-will-know is going to be
 completely opensource?

 Probably not. Seems the meego kernel is coming from the Intel
 moblin stuff, with the user interface/Qt library from Maemo.
 So my guess is that the UI stuff will be totally open source,
 but nokia-phone-specific stuff might still stay proprietary.

 No idea about what happens to official Nokia apps, such
 as Ovi maps.

        Julf
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-15 Thread Max

Nokia N900 is still not available here in the phone povider houses.
There is coding and coding and no releasing.
In the end google will buy Nokia and me and Amigo will be 23andme.
Ami go home!
there is no linux mobile phone for the masses, because the merge is delaying.
We need the N900 with actual Qt software in the market, not not mameo
5, but as well not meego in 2 years. we need maemo6 now on the nokia
N900 and a release in the phone houses.
Open Source they know, but not marketing, they do not know.
Remember my words:  Google needs Phones, and Nokia provides them,
So Nokia is a fish to eat! Nokia should merge with Acer. Anyhow.
Users in the market wait for the N900. Any solution to send them one
with phonehouse contract?

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Luca De Cicco ldeci...@gmail.com wrote:
 Sorry I didn't cc the list.

 I guess that the follow ups of this story will be very interesting.
 For starters,
 MeeGo claims to target automotive, where Intel has a very thin market
 share (if any).
 Will Intel bend to ARM for the development of MeeGo? Except for
 netbooks that ship
 Atom CPUs all the other MeeGo targets seem to be ARM devices.

 Any thoughts?

 Luca

 On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Johan Helsingius j...@julf.com wrote:
 Luca,

 So maemo-as-we-know will disappear and will reborn under the name of
 MeeGo?

 Well, disappear probably, but sounds like parts of the maemo effort
 will be carried over into meego.

 Does this mean that maemo-as-we-will-know is going to be
 completely opensource?

 Probably not. Seems the meego kernel is coming from the Intel
 moblin stuff, with the user interface/Qt library from Maemo.
 So my guess is that the UI stuff will be totally open source,
 but nokia-phone-specific stuff might still stay proprietary.

 No idea about what happens to official Nokia apps, such
 as Ovi maps.

        Julf
 ___
 maemo-developers mailing list
 maemo-developers@maemo.org
 https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-15 Thread Patrick Ohly

On Mo, 2010-02-15 at 12:49 +0100, Luca De Cicco wrote:
 Will Intel bend to ARM for the development of MeeGo? Except for
 netbooks that ship
 Atom CPUs all the other MeeGo targets seem to be ARM 

Chris Davies (Slashgear) says it will:
Of course, since other devices support Qt – such as Symbian –
apps will also load on those handsets too.  As for hardware
support, MeeGo will run on both x86 Intel Atom processors and
ARM-based chipsets more commonly found in mobile handsets.

http://www.slashgear.com/nokia-and-intel-launch-meego-moblin-and-maemo-merge-1573930/

Disclaimer: I'm an Intel employee working on data synchronization in
Moblin (SyncEvolution), but I'm not speaking for Intel in any way. I'm
posting here with my private email address because that is the one I
subscribed to this list before SyncEvolution became my main job.

-- 
Bye, Patrick Ohly
--  
patrick.o...@gmx.de
http://www.estamos.de/


___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-15 Thread Jeremiah Foster


On Feb 15, 2010, at 12:49 PM, Luca De Cicco wrote:
 
 I guess that the follow ups of this story will be very interesting.
 For starters,
 MeeGo claims to target automotive, where Intel has a very thin market
 share (if any).

Umm, perhaps you haven't seen the GenIVI consortium? (http://genivi.org) That 
is an automobile consortium with lots of big players. They use Intel's Moblin.

 Will Intel bend to ARM for the development of MeeGo?

I think they see the writing on the wall. Companies do not want a single 
vendor, architecture, programming language, etc. They want a healthy, diverse 
ecosystem. So ARM naturally has to be a part of it. It is a member of the 
GenIVI consortium BTW.

 Except for
 netbooks that ship
 Atom CPUs all the other MeeGo targets seem to be ARM devices.
 
 Any thoughts?

This is an acknowledgement that the playing field is level. Let those who can 
develop, deploy, and market win. Those who try to lock you into their own 
platform (Apple, Google, Windows) won't be able to compete with thousands of 
developers, both paid and unpaid.

Jeremiah

 
 Luca
 
 On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Johan Helsingius j...@julf.com wrote:
 Luca,
 
 So maemo-as-we-know will disappear and will reborn under the name of
 MeeGo?
 
 Well, disappear probably, but sounds like parts of the maemo effort
 will be carried over into meego.
 
 Does this mean that maemo-as-we-will-know is going to be
 completely opensource?
 
 Probably not. Seems the meego kernel is coming from the Intel
 moblin stuff, with the user interface/Qt library from Maemo.
 So my guess is that the UI stuff will be totally open source,
 but nokia-phone-specific stuff might still stay proprietary.
 
 No idea about what happens to official Nokia apps, such
 as Ovi maps.
 
Julf
 ___
 maemo-developers mailing list
 maemo-developers@maemo.org
 https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
 

___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-15 Thread Jeremiah Foster


On Feb 15, 2010, at 12:49 PM, Luca De Cicco wrote:
 
 I guess that the follow ups of this story will be very interesting.
 For starters,
 MeeGo claims to target automotive, where Intel has a very thin market
 share (if any).

Umm, perhaps you haven't seen the GenIVI consortium? (http://genivi.org) That 
is an automobile consortium with lots of big players. They use Intel's Moblin.

 Will Intel bend to ARM for the development of MeeGo?

I think they see the writing on the wall. Companies do not want a single 
vendor, architecture, programming language, etc. They want a healthy, diverse 
ecosystem. So ARM naturally has to be a part of it. It is a member of the 
GenIVI consortium BTW.

 Except for
 netbooks that ship
 Atom CPUs all the other MeeGo targets seem to be ARM devices.
 
 Any thoughts?

This is an acknowledgement that the playing field is level. Let those who can 
develop, deploy, and market win. Those who try to lock you into their own 
platform (Apple, Google, Windows) won't be able to compete with thousands of 
developers, both paid and unpaid.

Jeremiah

 
 Luca
 
 On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Johan Helsingius j...@julf.com wrote:
 Luca,
 
 So maemo-as-we-know will disappear and will reborn under the name of
 MeeGo?
 
 Well, disappear probably, but sounds like parts of the maemo effort
 will be carried over into meego.
 
 Does this mean that maemo-as-we-will-know is going to be
 completely opensource?
 
 Probably not. Seems the meego kernel is coming from the Intel
 moblin stuff, with the user interface/Qt library from Maemo.
 So my guess is that the UI stuff will be totally open source,
 but nokia-phone-specific stuff might still stay proprietary.
 
 No idea about what happens to official Nokia apps, such
 as Ovi maps.
 
Julf
 ___
 maemo-developers mailing list
 maemo-developers@maemo.org
 https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
 

___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-15 Thread Ian

Hi,
I looked through the MeeGo site but could not see anything about
packaging. A while back Moblin moved away from .deb to .rpm to develop
more community around Moblin. Which (or maybe both?) will be supported
on MeeGo

Ian


-- 
http://ianlawrence.info
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-15 Thread Daniel Martin Yerga


On 15/02/10 14:26, Ian wrote:

Hi,
I looked through the MeeGo site but could not see anything about
packaging. A while back Moblin moved away from .deb to .rpm to develop
more community around Moblin. Which (or maybe both?) will be supported
on MeeGo

Ian


Meego will use .rpm: http://meego.com/about/faq

___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-15 Thread Ian

Hey
 Meego will use .rpm: http://meego.com/about/faq

thx..damn, i had looked at that page too - need more coffee obviously

Ian


-- 
http://ianlawrence.info
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-15 Thread Tor

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 14:30, Daniel Martin Yerga dye...@gmail.com wrote:

 Meego will use .rpm: http://meego.com/about/faq

This is very bad news IMO. I work a lot with both formats and I know
which one is less painful.

-Tor
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-15 Thread Andre Klapper

Am Montag, den 15.02.2010, 14:44 +0100 schrieb Tor:
 On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 14:30, Daniel Martin Yerga dye...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Meego will use .rpm: http://meego.com/about/faq
 
 This is very bad news IMO. I work a lot with both formats and I know
 which one is less painful.

And this is a very subjective comment that misses any arguments. ;-)

andre
-- 
Andre Klapper (maemo.org bugmaster)

___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-15 Thread Michael Cronenworth


Tor wrote:

This is very bad news IMO. I work a lot with both formats and I know
which one is less painful.


Completely subjective. I work with both, and I can tell you the opposite.
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-15 Thread Michael Cronenworth


Jeremiah Foster wrote:

Intel and Nokia collaboration:http://meego.com/



I guess I'll be the first to ask then:

N900 support upgrade path planned?
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

the problem is not the package format itself but
they available applications using the package format.
Maemo uses .deb and already has lots of applications (plus Jebba's etch
build). For Moblin, OTOH, are they any applications?
Is there any good reason to switch to .rpm except for breaking
compatibility?

On 15.02.10 14:51, Andre Klapper wrote:
 Am Montag, den 15.02.2010, 14:44 +0100 schrieb Tor:
 On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 14:30, Daniel Martin Yerga dye...@gmail.com wrote:

 Meego will use .rpm: http://meego.com/about/faq

 This is very bad news IMO. I work a lot with both formats and I know
 which one is less painful.
 
 And this is a very subjective comment that misses any arguments. ;-)
 
 andre


-- 
Thomas Tanner --
email: tan...@gmx.de
GnuPG: 1024/5924D4DD
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

Its not to much an issue to convert deb-packages to rpm, though.
You might want to have a look at:
http://kitenet.net/~joey/code/alien/
I prefer rpm to deb as well.
Cheers,
 Chris

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Thomas Tanner tan...@gmx.de wrote:

 the problem is not the package format itself but
 they available applications using the package format.
 Maemo uses .deb and already has lots of applications (plus Jebba's etch
 build). For Moblin, OTOH, are they any applications?
 Is there any good reason to switch to .rpm except for breaking
 compatibility?

 On 15.02.10 14:51, Andre Klapper wrote:
  Am Montag, den 15.02.2010, 14:44 +0100 schrieb Tor:
  On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 14:30, Daniel Martin Yerga dye...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
  Meego will use .rpm: http://meego.com/about/faq
 
  This is very bad news IMO. I work a lot with both formats and I know
  which one is less painful.
 
  And this is a very subjective comment that misses any arguments. ;-)
 
  andre


 --
 Thomas Tanner --
 email: tan...@gmx.de
 GnuPG: 1024/5924D4DD
 ___
 maemo-developers mailing list
 maemo-developers@maemo.org
 https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-15 Thread Henry Bilby - HMMB

MeeGO will support opengl?

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 6:52 AM, Jeremiah Foster 
jerem...@jeremiahfoster.com wrote:

 Intel and Nokia collaboration: http://meego.com/

 Jeremiah
 ___
 maemo-developers mailing list
 maemo-developers@maemo.org
 https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers




-- 
Henry Bilby
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-15 Thread Jeremiah Foster


On Feb 15, 2010, at 4:40 PM, Thomas Tanner wrote:

 The problem is more complex than converting binary .debs to .rpms using
 a hack.

alien is not a hack. It is packaged and maintained by Joey Hess who wrote 
debhelper. Few people know more about debian's build system than Joey.

 The dependencies, the build script and Debian (ucf, debconf) or Maemo
 (maemo-optify) specific aspects of the sources would need to be adapted
 as well. Backporting to Maemo5 would also be more difficult.

Backporting is always going to be difficult. 

 Who benefits more from the merger, Moblin or Maemo?

Both benefit if we get the kind of scale that is imagined. We create a single 
platform to power many devices across the device spectrum. This is a battle for 
the operating system that works everywhere BUT the desktop, they already 
concede that Windows owns that and no one wants to fight there. 

Jeremiah
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

On 15.02.10 16:47, Jeremiah Foster wrote:
 The problem is more complex than converting binary .debs to .rpms
 using a hack.
 alien is not a hack.

the hack referes to a process ignoring the issues listed below. No
automated process can take into account all the distribution and program
specific quirks.

 The dependencies, the build script and Debian (ucf, debconf) or
 Maemo (maemo-optify) specific aspects of the sources would need to
 be adapted as well. Backporting to Maemo5 would also be more
 difficult.
 
 Who benefits more from the merger, Moblin or Maemo?
 Both benefit if we get the kind of scale that is imagined.

I'm not critising the merger itself, but how and what is merged
and whether that are top-down decisions or whether the community is
involved.

AFAIK there a hardly any Moblin specific third-party apps.
It could be much less effort to integrate the Moblin components
in a Debian based system than converting all Maemo apps to Moblin/RPM.

-- 
Thomas Tanner --
email: tan...@gmx.de
GnuPG: 1024/5924D4DD
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-15 Thread Jamie Bennett


On 15 Feb 2010, at 16:21, Thomas Tanner wrote:

 On 15.02.10 16:47, Jeremiah Foster wrote:
 The problem is more complex than converting binary .debs to .rpms
 using a hack.
 alien is not a hack.
 
 the hack referes to a process ignoring the issues listed below. No
 automated process can take into account all the distribution and program
 specific quirks.
 
 The dependencies, the build script and Debian (ucf, debconf) or
 Maemo (maemo-optify) specific aspects of the sources would need to
 be adapted as well. Backporting to Maemo5 would also be more
 difficult.
 
 Who benefits more from the merger, Moblin or Maemo?
 Both benefit if we get the kind of scale that is imagined.
 
 I'm not critising the merger itself, but how and what is merged
 and whether that are top-down decisions or whether the community is
 involved.
 
 AFAIK there a hardly any Moblin specific third-party apps.
 It could be much less effort to integrate the Moblin components
 in a Debian based system than converting all Maemo apps to Moblin/RPM.

Its already been done with the Ubuntu Moblin Remix. (Disclaimer, I work for 
Canonical who did the Moblin Remix).

 Thomas Tanner --

Regards,
Jamie.
--
http://www.linuxuk.org



___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-15 Thread Luca De Cicco

I would stay away of packaging holy wars (packaging is boooring) :).
It is true that packaging has some technical implications, however
I would focus more on the scenario we are going to experience.

How  and who will manage the community efforts?
Is MeeGo going to be deployed on real commercial products (nokia phones,
tv sets)?

Generally, I'm a bit cautious when new mobile/embedded OS hit the news.
All of them promise heaven, but then very few are deployed in real
products (that is
Symbian, windows CE).

just my two cents,
Luca

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Thomas Tanner tan...@gmx.de wrote:
 On 15.02.10 16:47, Jeremiah Foster wrote:
 The problem is more complex than converting binary .debs to .rpms
 using a hack.
 alien is not a hack.

 the hack referes to a process ignoring the issues listed below. No
 automated process can take into account all the distribution and program
 specific quirks.

 The dependencies, the build script and Debian (ucf, debconf) or
 Maemo (maemo-optify) specific aspects of the sources would need to
 be adapted as well. Backporting to Maemo5 would also be more
 difficult.

 Who benefits more from the merger, Moblin or Maemo?
 Both benefit if we get the kind of scale that is imagined.

 I'm not critising the merger itself, but how and what is merged
 and whether that are top-down decisions or whether the community is
 involved.

 AFAIK there a hardly any Moblin specific third-party apps.
 It could be much less effort to integrate the Moblin components
 in a Debian based system than converting all Maemo apps to Moblin/RPM.

 --
 Thomas Tanner --
 email: tan...@gmx.de
 GnuPG: 1024/5924D4DD
 ___
 maemo-developers mailing list
 maemo-developers@maemo.org
 https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Thomas Tanner tan...@gmx.de wrote:

 The problem is more complex than converting binary .debs to .rpms using
 a hack.
 The dependencies, the build script and Debian (ucf, debconf) or Maemo
 (maemo-optify) specific aspects of the sources would need to be adapted
 as well. Backporting to Maemo5 would also be more difficult.
 Who benefits more from the merger, Moblin or Maemo?

 Since MeeGo is about to become the successor of Maemo, I guess there won't
be any need to backport anything.
I guess that rpm is just more advanced than deb. Finally, most third party
software applicable to date is either binary or rpm, but not deb. It is
probably easier to convince developers to port their linux tools to MeeGo if
they're already familiar with the package management.
Cheers,
 Chris
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-15 Thread Dieter Plaetinck

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:21:12 +0100
Thomas Tanner tan...@gmx.de wrote:


 AFAIK there a hardly any Moblin specific third-party apps.
 It could be much less effort to integrate the Moblin components
 in a Debian based system than converting all Maemo apps to Moblin/RPM.
 

of course that is what we - maemo guys - say.
The opinion of moblin developers might be the exact opposite ;)

Dieter

PS: I have no idea of moblin's size, so maybe you make a good point.  I
don't know.
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo-Mailinglist Merge (MMM)

2010-02-15 Thread Max

Hello
both mailinglists will be disabled, and merged into the megoo mailinglist

Right? :-P

When? !
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-15 Thread Attila Csipa

On Monday 15 February 2010 17:55:16 Christopher Intemann wrote:
 I guess that rpm is just more advanced than deb. Finally, most third party
 software applicable to date is either binary or rpm, but not deb. It is
 probably easier to convince developers to port their linux tools to MeeGo
 if they're already familiar with the package management.

Which third party software are you referring to ? Not trying to get into the 
packaging format fight, just being curious...


Regards,
Attila

___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo-Mailinglist Merge (MMM)

2010-02-15 Thread Andre Klapper

Am Montag, den 15.02.2010, 18:25 +0100 schrieb Max:
 both mailinglists will be disabled, and merged into the megoo mailinglist
 
 Right? :-P

No? :-P

 When? !

*If* it happens: When it's time to do so.

Maemo and Moblin both coexist right now and there is no need to pollute
each project with questions specific to the other platform respectively.

andre
-- 
Andre Klapper (maemo.org bugmaster)

___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Attila Csipa ma...@csipa.in.rs wrote:

 On Monday 15 February 2010 17:55:16 Christopher Intemann wrote:
  I guess that rpm is just more advanced than deb. Finally, most third
 party
  software applicable to date is either binary or rpm, but not deb. It is
  probably easier to convince developers to port their linux tools to MeeGo
  if they're already familiar with the package management.


 Which third party software are you referring to ? Not trying to get into
 the packaging format fight, just being curious...



Linux binaries, like... flash, silverlight (mono package), several google
apps like chrome, google desktop/gadgets/earth/picasa...
I'm currently installing all my stuff via the repositories, but after having
used as well Debian, SuSE and Fedora for several years, I have the
impression that, if there is a binary package available for download, it
would be an RPM. I've barely seen Debs for download.
By the way. Is Moblin using yum, yast, or anything homebrew?
Cheers,
 Chris
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

On 15.02.10 17:55, Christopher Intemann wrote:
 Since MeeGo is about to become the successor of Maemo, I guess there
 won't be any need to backport anything.

such an attitude would make lots of N900 and N8x0 owners angry...

 I guess that rpm is just more advanced than deb.

this is wrong, but not relevant here. The package format itself is
negligible. The important point is the infrastructure it implies.
According to http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS2068665492.html
Moblin switched from Ubuntu to Fedora because RPM offers the advantage
of containing license information (I don't whether that's the only or
main reason). But .debs have the license information in their doc
directory (most of them are DFSG free anyway) and it could be added
as X-License field of the package description, if necessary.

I don't want a platform that is merely a Qt runtime enviroment (Symbian
would be sufficient) but one which also offers me easy access to the
complete GNU/Linux software world.
Debian based distributions have offered working ARM ports for years
but Fedora does not. Porting Moblin/Fedora to ARM would be lots
of duplicated effort, using Maemo/Debian on X86 or ARM is for free.

On 15.02.10 17:57, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
 PS: I have no idea of moblin's size, so maybe you make a good point.  I
 don't know.

I could only find those standard GNOME applications
http://garage.moblin.org/garage/all?page=1

-- 
Thomas Tanner --
email: tan...@gmx.de
GnuPG: 1024/5924D4DD
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

RPM vs. Deb (was Re: MeeGo)

2010-02-15 Thread Michael Cronenworth


Thomas Tanner wrote:

I don't want a platform that is merely a Qt runtime enviroment (Symbian
would be sufficient) but one which also offers me easy access to the
complete GNU/Linux software world.
Debian based distributions have offered working ARM ports for years
but Fedora does not. Porting Moblin/Fedora to ARM would be lots
of duplicated effort, using Maemo/Debian on X86 or ARM is for free.


Thomas, you're getting all upset over nothing. The fact that RPM will 
now be used is nothing more than politics. No features will be lost. No 
amount of whining to this list will change what is already in motion.



*cough* http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/ARM *cough*

I don't see any value in this continued discussion of RPM vs. Deb.
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-15 Thread Johan Helsingius

Max,

 Nokia N900 is still not available here in the phone povider houses.

And why does that matter? What's wrong with getting it from
the Nokia online store? Why do you feel the need to support
the old world phone channels?

 Open Source they know, but not marketing, they do not know.

I would argue the opposite :)

 Remember my words:  Google needs Phones, and Nokia provides them,
 So Nokia is a fish to eat!

You are of course entitled to your opinion.

 Users in the market wait for the N900.

If they want one, that can of course go an buy one.

 Any solution to send them one with phonehouse contract?

Phonehouse contract?

Julf
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: RPM vs. Deb (was Re: MeeGo)

I have repeatedly stated this is not about the package format!
It is about the infrastructure and the available software.
I have no problem with commercial apps being installed as rpms (using
alien).
Why should we drop the efforts of the Maemo and Debian community on ARM
devices? Where is the Moblin community anway?
compare
http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/packages_to_be_fixed.html
with http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu/arm

On 15.02.10 19:07, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
 Thomas, you're getting all upset over nothing. The fact that RPM will
 now be used is nothing more than politics. No features will be lost. No
 amount of whining to this list will change what is already in motion.
 
 *cough* http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/ARM *cough*
 
 I don't see any value in this continued discussion of RPM vs. Deb.

-- 
Thomas Tanner --
email: tan...@gmx.de
GnuPG: 1024/5924D4DD
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Nokia was the leader with the communicator phone, everyone wanted
since the smartphone age, nokia knows, selling hardware has gone and
acquired Qt.
the N 900 is a relaunch of the communicator. but no phone house gets it.
In the meantime we have
- Motorola Milstone and
- sony ericson x-peria 10
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/MWC-Was-Kleines-von-Sony-Ericsson-930178.html?view=zoom;zoom=1
Nokia knows, that the linux app store is sooo small and buggy, not
comparable with Iphone,
Furthermore maemo5 is not allowing to install Qt, the overslept to
bring mamemo 06 on the nokai N 900.
Then Symbian was made open source, so no meamo is needed anymore.
The rest is to merge maemo and pull off the ground for the N900, as
app developers can make apps open for symbian.
The result is a delay again and again no selling of phones, esp., the N900
The mass market buys phone in a phonehouse, not because linux is on
it. that would be a side effect to bring linux to the masses.
We need good selling phones, then this list makes sense.
Which consumer wil buy a N900 , while Qt is not installed on maemo 5,
they wait for a upgrade to mamemo 06 and now they wait 2 years for
N900 with meego.
That is the left hand pulling of the ground for the right hand. Either
nokia is a hadware manufacturer or a software geek, merging nerd
groups. Here the software developers stopped the selling succes of the
Nokia N900.
No customer will buy a N 900 with outdated mameo 05 or outdated maemo
06, and a N900 with mee Go is a pure vaporware.
Look at apple, they know product cylcus with Ipad: first without wifi
and with added 64 MB, then a G3 one, and then a size bigger and
brighter..

Nokia N900 is exactly the opposite. Each step shows : Dont buy a N900
it is not ready, we just made the website frames to fill something in.
And really, what do you suggest from intel? They are strong in
automotive, but not in the phone world. Moblin is good, but linux
phone kernel closed source? so which geeks do you want to enthusiast?
Google will buy Nokia and will show us, how a product cyclus of a
chrome-phone is scheduled..

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Johan Helsingius j...@julf.com wrote:
Max,

Nokia N900 is still not available here in the phone povider houses.

And why does that matter? What's wrong with getting it from
the Nokia online store? Why do you feel the need to support
the old world phone channels?

Users in the market wait for the N900.

If they want one, that can of course go an buy one.

Any solution to send them one with phonehouse contract?

Phonehouse contract?

Julf

___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-15 Thread Andre Klapper

Am Montag, den 15.02.2010, 19:15 +0100 schrieb Johan Helsingius:
 And why does that matter?

Don't feed the trolls, just ignore them, I'd propose here... :-)

andre
-- 
Andre Klapper (maemo.org bugmaster)

___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

RE: MeeGo

2010-02-15 Thread kate.alhola

From: maemo-developers-boun...@maemo.org [maemo-developers-boun...@maemo.org] 
On Behalf Of ext Max [petersonm...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 8:30 PM
To: Johan Helsingius
Cc: maemo-developers@maemo.org
Subject: Re: MeeGo

Nokia was the leader with the communicator phone, everyone wanted
since the smartphone age, nokia knows, selling hardware has gone and
acquired Qt.
the N 900 is a relaunch of the communicator. but no phone house gets it.
In the meantime we have
- Motorola Milstone and
- sony ericson x-peria 10
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/MWC-Was-Kleines-von-Sony-Ericsson-930178.html?view=zoom;zoom=1
Nokia knows, that the linux app store is sooo small and buggy, not
comparable with Iphone,

OVI Store for Maemo has just opened, it will grow. Think how big was Apple
appstore half of year after iPhone was published ? I think that it was
not existing at all. 

Furthermore maemo5 is not allowing to install Qt, the overslept to
bring mamemo 06 on the nokai N 900.

There has been Qt for Maemo 5 lot before even N900 was released. 
Qt for Maemo5 was releaste together with SDK beta about one year ago.

Qt has been instalable from repositories and now in MWC, we also annouced
that final Qt4.6 port for Maemo 5 is there
http://qt.nokia.com/products/qt-news-from-mwc

Then Symbian was made open source, so no meamo is needed anymore.

Maemo is Open Source but it is also targeted to diferent device category than 
Symbian.

The rest is to merge maemo and pull off the ground for the N900, as
app developers can make apps open for symbian.
The result is a delay again and again no selling of phones, esp., the N900
The mass market buys phone in a phonehouse, not because linux is on
it. that would be a side effect to bring linux to the masses.

It depends a lot of market area how end users buy their device.
In some markets, like in North America most ones buy subsidized 
phone from Operators. In many others markets, they buy device
from shop and then SIM from operator.

We need good selling phones, then this list makes sense.
Which consumer wil buy a N900 , while Qt is not installed on maemo 5,
they wait for a upgrade to mamemo 06 and now they wait 2 years for
N900 with meego.

End user does not even know what is Qt or GTK. When end user installs 
applications, they does not even know is it Qt or GTK application.
many of OVI store applivations for Maemo 5 are already Qt apps.

Kate
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: RPM vs. Deb (was Re: MeeGo)

2010-02-15 Thread Jean-Christian de Rivaz


Michael Cronenworth a écrit :

Thomas Tanner wrote:

I don't want a platform that is merely a Qt runtime enviroment (Symbian
would be sufficient) but one which also offers me easy access to the
complete GNU/Linux software world.
Debian based distributions have offered working ARM ports for years
but Fedora does not. Porting Moblin/Fedora to ARM would be lots
of duplicated effort, using Maemo/Debian on X86 or ARM is for free.


Thomas, you're getting all upset over nothing. The fact that RPM will 
now be used is nothing more than politics. No features will be lost. No 
amount of whining to this list will change what is already in motion.



*cough* http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/ARM *cough*

I don't see any value in this continued discussion of RPM vs. Deb.


Because you don't see any value into the hug advance Debian have in both 
infrastructure and quality to manage multiple architectures. There is no 
comparable effort in others distributions like Debian have proved to 
develop a multiarch distribution. Multiarch will probably start to be 
usable sometime after the next Debian release and this will greatly 
impact the way embedded systems will be build.


Using obscure politic decision vs recognize the technical merit and 
effort should be added on top of the How to destroy a community list.


Regards,

Jean-Christian de Rivaz
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-15 Thread Johan Helsingius

Andre,

 Don't feed the trolls, just ignore them, I'd propose here... :-)

I think you are right... :)

Julf
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Max petersonm...@googlemail.com wrote:

 the N 900 is a relaunch of the communicator. but no phone house gets it.


By the way: What is phonehouse? Were'nt they a provider which did eventually
merge into Mobilcom or sth.? In which country do they still exist? I haven't
seen a store for ages. And, finally: Does it matter at all?
Just saw the N900 at several stores, including Saturn, so I would claim it
applicable.
___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo

2010-02-15 Thread Attila Csipa

On Monday 15 February 2010 18:44:26 Christopher Intemann wrote:
   software applicable to date is either binary or rpm, but not deb. It is
   probably easier to convince developers to port their linux tools to
   MeeGo if they're already familiar with the package management.
 
  Which third party software are you referring to ? Not trying to get into
  the packaging format fight, just being curious...

 Linux binaries, like... flash, silverlight (mono package), several google
 apps like chrome, google desktop/gadgets/earth/picasa...
 I'm currently installing all my stuff via the repositories, but after
 having used as well Debian, SuSE and Fedora for several years, I have the
 impression that, if there is a binary package available for download, it
 would be an RPM. I've barely seen Debs for download.

For the record, Adobe's Flash, Google's Chrome and Picasa officially offer 
DEBs. 
Moonlight is distributed as a firefox plugin, so it does not really relate to 
this question. Google Earth provides only a binary blob install (good luck 
getting rid of it or fighting through it's dependency/64bit hell). 

So, again, which software are we talking about that has issues with packaging 
formats (either way) ? People seem to be missing the point - it's not whether 
DEBs or RPMs are better - the question here was why change your existing 
package architecture (whichever it is), i.e. what's the big thing we're (as in 
developer community, Maemo, or MeeGo or whatever) winning by this change ? 
Moblin was citing better developer and community acceptance as the reasons for 
the switch (I don't buy the license talk for a second), but that is 
theoretically exactly what Maemo brings to the table. That's why I'm puzzled 
why this choice went the Moblin side in the end.

Regards,
Attila



___
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Re: MeeGo, unity or fragmentation?