On Sep 16, 2010, at 10:42 AM, David Greaves wrote: > On 16/09/10 17:24, Skarpness, Mark wrote: >> >> On Sep 16, 2010, at 4:36 AM, David Greaves wrote: >>> So... a vendor has the freedom to forbid certain MeeGo compliant apps on >>> their device/store? >> Yes > > Good. > >>> If MeeGo then permits Surrounds-dependent apps to be labelled "Compliant" >>> then there is no addidional burden placed on a vendor since they can simply >>> refuse to allow them on their device/store? > >> No - that is a different problem. If compliance says that compliant apps can >> have external dependencies, > > 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. > >> then every compliant device MUST support those >> dependencies and ensure they are available to every device. That is the >> burden we are debating. > > If I make a package that is api-compliant and self-contained and put it in > Extras then that can be labelled compliant. By your definition it offers no > burden. > > If I install a 2nd application that is compliant then it too offers no burden. > > If the 2nd differs because it "depends" on the first one then what additional > burden exists? As we have discussed repeatedly - the burden that a device must provide a way to install the second app (or dependency). > > The burden of dependency resolution... which is specifically required to be > compliant (http://wiki.meego.com/images/MeeGo-Compliance-Spec-1.0.80.8.pdf > lines 231/232 again) That will be removed in the next rev...this is the first draft. > >>> This demonstrates *exactly* what I expected and I fully support and >>> comprehend it. Vendors are *NOT* obliged to support compliant apps so >>> allowing some apps to be labelled "compliant" does not put any mandatory >>> burden on vendore or app stores. >> Device vendors are obliged to have the ability to run every compliant app. > > Fine. They *could* run every compliant app that depended on another compliant > app *if* they permitted it to be installed. > > But, since.... >> They are not obliged to allow the user to install every compliant app. > > Then they simply forbid installation. > >>> So which of the previous arguments against Surrounds are still valid? >> The burden placed on the device vendor to ensure that all possible external >> dependencies are available to every device. > No. You said yourself : "They are not obliged to allow the user to install > every > compliant app." > > They simply forbid the installation of apps for which they cannot provide > dependencies. > > So what does this achieve? > Apps depending on shared libraries can be labelled compliant. > Vendors are under no obligation to support Extras and have zero additional > burden. > > David > -- > "Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon once..."
_______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
