On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 09:04:07PM +0100, David Greaves wrote: > On 23/09/10 20:05, Greg KH wrote: > >On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 12:20:27PM -0500, Ibrahim Haddad wrote: > >>On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Dave Neary<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>Ibrahim Haddad wrote: > >>>>You can apply patches against > >>>>components in the MeeGo Core stack and you can add new components but > >>>>not to replace existing MeeGo components. > >>> > >>>How far can this patching go? Do you have to be API compatible? ABI? > >> > >>As a rule, patching should not break API or ABI compatibility. > > > >I don't see ConnMan providing an API or ABI, do you? If so, where is it > >documented? > > Not to be facetious ... but in the reference code?
I don't see that, where does ConnMan export stuff to programs outside of it? There are dbus messages, but those follow a "standard" that NM also follows, right? > Isn't MeeGo supposed to be a reference implementation for people to > build on top of? I don't know what it is these days, as there's only been one release, and that's the netbook 1.0 one. > Sanity check... the objective is along the lines of: > if I see a distro labelled ".*MeeGo.*" then I can assume that my > "MeeGo World[1] compliant" app will find the complete set of > services/apis/blah that the core provides. That's fine, and I think it's what people normally think of when they are worried about "compliance". However the openSUSE and Fedora usages are turning that upside down, as they are not "based on" MeeGo at all. > Will replacing ConnMan impact that? I fail to see how as at least one distro is currently shipping such a product without ConnMan and are calling it MeeGo. > Maybe we should come up with a cute name for the UX and let that be > used in the OSS world? I agree. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
