[MeeGo-dev] Meego spec - for comment
mark.skarpness at intel.com
Sat Sep 18 11:36:26 PDT 2010
On Sep 18, 2010, at 9:05 AM, Gabriel Beddingfield wrote:
>>> Instead, why not leave "MeeGo Compliant Apps" alone and carve room in the
>>> spec for "MeeGo Extras." Either allow only one "Extras" repos. Or PREFIX
>> Saying 'oh, not being compliant is not a big deal, look, we have thousands of
>> non-compliant apps that are safe and run just fine !' sounds really bad from
>> the aspect of the future value of term MeeGo Compliant for *users and
> Except that's *not* what I said.
> Making a single app "MeeGo Compliant" so that it is deliverable from
> many kinds of "app store" and always work -- that's not hard to
> specify and hammer out and make it work.
I agree - this is the core objective of MeeGo compliance.
> Making a group of inter-dependent apps "MeeGo Compliant" and
> deliverable from many kinds of "app store" -- that's a much harder
> problem to solve. Let's not hold up the show to solve that problem.
Yes, exactly - it's harder and it imposes requirements on those building devices and app stores which will be unacceptable to many of them.
> I think there should be a separate class, called something like "MeeGo
> Extras" that is build around something that you could call a "MeeGo
> Compliant /Repository/." This would enable the open-source community
> to shine at what they do best.
That's a good idea. Anyone building a device or app store is free to also support the MeeGo Extras if they see value in it. We just don't make it mandatory by including it as part of compliance.
> MeeGo-dev mailing list
> MeeGo-dev at meego.com
More information about the MeeGo-dev