On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 02:03:00PM -0700, Auke Kok wrote: > On 09/23/10 13:48, Greg KH wrote: > >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? > > does that drop-in-replacement provide the same proxy support that is > in connman?
Probably better :) _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
