On 16/09/10 21:00, Skarpness, Mark wrote:
On Sep 16, 2010, at 12:37 PM, Andrew Flegg wrote:
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?
That is the crux of the problem - if you allow compliant apps to have
external dependencies, then you require compliant devices to provide a
mechanism to get the dependencies
So this "require compliant devices to provide a mechanism to get the
dependencies" is a problem.
OK
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.
Each could be compliant on their own - but if App A requires App B to run,
then App A is not compliant (unless App B is included with App A).
Actually, it is by the current draft :)
However, I take your point.
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.
We run into trouble when a compliant app requires the installation of
something else from an external source in order to run. If we can find a
solution to that problem - then it could work.
Did you manage to read my email in this torrent :)
In that I suggested we add:
Applications *MUST NOT* require (in RPM terminology) packages that are not
themselves compliant.
This keeps us pure.
Applications that require (in RPM terminology) packages that cannot be provided
MUST NOT be installed.
This could be your solution.
At this point, to use your words: when "a compliant app requires the
installation of something else from an external source in order to run." it MUST
NOT be installed if the something else from an external source cannot be provided.
Can we work on this approach?
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
