Hi,
ext Acadia Secure Networks wrote:
> another example of a very good ARM emulator is the one that Microsoft
> has created for Windows Mobile SW developers. This emulator has already
> been updated to support WM 6.0 and it can be obtained either as a part
> of the Windows Mobile SDK or, stand alo
Mike,
another example of a very good ARM emulator is the one that Microsoft
has created for Windows Mobile SW developers. This emulator has already
been updated to support WM 6.0 and it can be obtained either as a part
of the Windows Mobile SDK or, stand alone. Here is the url to the
downloa
Mike,
understood. I would classify what Microsoft has done as a reasonable
proxy for a whole device emulator, at least for the non-radio parts of a
mobile device.
Best Regards,
John Holmblad
Acadia Secure Networks
GSEC Gold, GCWN Gold, GGSC-0100, NSA-IAM, NSA-IEM
*serving the SmartDig
John, thanks ...
> another example of a very good ARM emulator is the one that Microsoft has
created for Windows Mobile SW developers. This emulator has already been
updated to support WM 6.0 and it can be obtained either as a part of the
Windows Mobile SDK or, stand alone.
...
> To my way of th
> > Said that, the main elements to consider are:
> >
> > - Development via Scratchbox vs development models bypassing SB
> > - SB vs SB2
>
> > Several pieces moving around, we need to consider all those and come up
> > with a sensible strategy, and results. All this work is for you guys.
> > Deve
On 4/12/07, Quim Gil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Oh my.
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 11:29 +0300, ext Lauri Leukkunen wrote:
> I'm not entirely sure how to interprete this. You're basically saying
> that Nokia is considering dropping scratchbox and the debian
> integration model and replacing it with op
Oh my.
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 11:29 +0300, ext Lauri Leukkunen wrote:
> I'm not entirely sure how to interprete this. You're basically saying
> that Nokia is considering dropping scratchbox and the debian
> integration model and replacing it with openembedded?
I wonder how you conclude this from m
On 4/12/07, Kalle Vahlman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2007/4/12, Lauri Leukkunen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 4/12/07, Quim Gil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 03:06 +0300, ext Lauri Leukkunen wrote:
> > Said that, the main elements to consider are:
> >
> > - Development via Scra
2007/4/12, Lauri Leukkunen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 4/12/07, Quim Gil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 03:06 +0300, ext Lauri Leukkunen wrote:
> Said that, the main elements to consider are:
>
> - Development via Scratchbox vs development models bypassing SB
> - SB vs SB2
> Seve
On 4/12/07, Quim Gil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 03:06 +0300, ext Lauri Leukkunen wrote:
Said that, the main elements to consider are:
- Development via Scratchbox vs development models bypassing SB
- SB vs SB2
Several pieces moving around, we need to consider all those a
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 03:06 +0300, ext Lauri Leukkunen wrote:
> It would be nice if Nokia or some other entity with money or available
> resources would sponsor or provide these items for SB2:
Good that you mention. :)
We need to evaluate how important is SB2 for maemo development. We need
to o
11 matches
Mail list logo
