Re: Sandboxed Gnome apps

[Emmanuele Bassi <ebassi gmail com>]

hi Alex; this is great material, thanks for sending it.

On 4 September 2014 18:05, Alexander Larsson <alexl redhat com> wrote:

> 1. A platform definition

...

> 2. A reference implementation

...

> 3. A SDK and other tooling

...

> 4. IPC stability guarantees

...

> 5. Sandboxing APIs

...

also:

 6. A compliance test suite/document

we want:

 * application developers to check that their application will
correctly run on GNOME, and be able to ensure that their application
appears in the Software installer, whatever run-time they opt to use.
 * OEMs and OSVs (and I put distributions in the latter category) to
verify (even automatically) that they are indeed deploying GNOME in a
way that makes both the OS and the applications work as best as
possible, so that they can create their own overlay on top of the
GNOME run-time.
 * the engagement team to have a list of compliant environments that
are deploying GNOME as expected, as well as a list of well-behaved
applications to point and showcase for ISVs to use.
 * the QA team to be able to run a compliance test suite (and possibly
a QA "script" of actions) on our run-time releases to verify that the
functionality is available and that there are no regressions.

example 1: if Fedora wants to ship a run-time that builds on top of
the GNOME reference one then they will have to know what capabilities
can be added without breaking the underlying environment.

example 2: if Endless is shipping an OS that is based on GNOME, they
need to provide a compliance QA document for verifying that the
installation on the factory floor is executed correctly, which means a
compliance document with a bunch of test units.

ciao,
 Emmanuele.

-- 
http://www.bassi.io
[ ] ebassi [ gmail com]