On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 19:09, Skarpness, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sep 16, 2010, at 10:42 AM, David Greaves wrote: >> >> 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).
And, and this is the kicker, *how* did the device get the dependee *without* also having a mechanism to get the dependencies? Whilst the only mechanism of getting the second package is to get it from the same repo as the first; cannot *both* be Compliant? Take the second package as a file, without the dependencies, on a USB stick and - perhaps - it's *not* Compliant. Is that viable? A package can be Compliant if it's alongside its dependencies (or if the installation of its dependencies, which must be Compliant as well). Take the package *out* of that environment and it becomes not Compliant. Thoughts? Thanks in advance, Andrew -- Andrew Flegg -- mailto:[email protected] | http://www.bleb.org/ Maemo Community Council chair _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
