On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 01:31:43PM -0700, Auke Kok wrote: > On 09/23/10 13:04, 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? > > > >Isn't MeeGo supposed to be a reference implementation for people to build on > >top of? > > > >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. > > > >Will replacing ConnMan impact that? > > Yes, if these are applications that use the dbus interface to > query/modify parameters that are handled through connmand.
So if we have a "drop-in-replacement" for this interface that doesn't happen to be ConnMan, all should be fine, right? Can that be spelled out in the compliance document please? thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
