Re: GUPnP and PulseAudio

[Paul Cooper <pgc linux intel com>]

On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 12:41 -0600, Stormy Peters wrote:


> Are GNOME Mobile technologies a stack then? Things all the vendors
> use? Or is it a collection of the most commonly used that people pick
> and choose from? If it's the latter, then I think we ought to include
> anything we think is good enough for mobile use and suggest a stack.

Hmm, kind of both? GNOME Mobile is a complete stack (upto the UI and
applications on top) that can, and is, used by various vendors. However
vendors will pick and choose because on constrained devices there is no
room for passengers - if the device doesn't have bluetooth, then bluez
won't be included, if there is no need for PIM data on the device then
no EDS backend, and so on. To give an example, the Vernier LabQuest is a
GM device but doesn't have bluetooth, or store PIM data, or require
IM/presense, so doesn't include BlueZ, EDS, or Telepathy.

I *think* that vendors use the common components where they have need
for that functionality - anyone know of any divergences?

As to how things get included in GM, we haven't formalised it yet, but I
guess the assumption is that we'll work much like the Desktop
components, i.e. during this part of the cycle new additions will be
proposed and Ross and the other developers on the list will look at the
license, history of releases, code quality, CPU/memory usage, bug count,
etc, and we'll expect maintainers to commit to syncing up to the 6 month
release cycle. A rough consensus will form and ultimately Ross decides
whether to include the project in the next cycle.

We also seem to have a list of 'projects in incubation' which mostly
comes from the previous GM meetings (in LF summit in Austin, and at
GUADEC) where we've identified potential missing functionality and
projects that potentially fill those gaps. Perhaps making this process
slightly more structured, like Apache for example, and documenting the
process would be worthwhile?

> I think if we just follow what is already being used, we won't be a
> leader and other technologies, that might not work as well as GNOME's
> or fit so well with ours, will become standard.

I'm not sure leading/following is the right way to frame things. With
GUPnP and PA, both have been on our incubator list since at least the
Austin meeting with development on both from various companies involved
in GNOME, and now both are part of the maemo platform (and possibly
others), and I would expect that both will be considered for inclusion
in this next cycle. Who's leading and who's following?

This was our first proper release of GM so we've had to be a little
conservative (as Ross mentioned), but now we can get into the proper
cycle of reviewing and including incubator projects.

Paul

> Thoughts?
> 
> Stormy 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mobile-devel-list mailing list
> mobile-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-devel-list
-- 
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
http://oss.intel.com/