Mailing List Archive

On Wednesday 24 February 2010 15:43:47 Thomas Tanner wrote:
> In a (Debian based) distribution the proper way to handle such conflicts
> would be to specify the minimum required version in each extras apps
> (e.g. qt4.5) and to switch to a new package name if the new package is
> no longer backwards compatible (qt4.6).

> If it not possible to install both qt4.5 and qt4.6 due to space
> constraints the user should have the option to either deinstall old
> qt4.5 apps or wait until all his extras apps are upgraded 4.6.

The complications stem from the way this is handled in Maemo, at least for Qt.
I just hope this slightly complex PR1.2 Qt transition is not a snowball
effect of how some Maemoisms were added (hacked :) ) into Qt4.5/4.6 and even
more that this is not a sign of how these things will be handled in the
future. Backwards compatibility was something Qt4 was very well known for,
and desktop environments often bump their Qt versions for backports (hell,
even LTS versions of Ubuntu did that), without requiring
repository/application hoop-jumping.


> Forced upgrades of some components for installation of a new package is
> standard practice for all package management systems (keyword version
> dependencies).

It seems we have a different definition of forced upgrade :) (I would use the
required term for what you described)


Regards,
Attila


_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Hello,

On Wednesday 24 of February 2010, Dave Neary wrote:
> Sascha Mäkelä wrote:
> > I was under the impression that for many Qt apps a simple repackaging
> > will do the trick. If this is the case, would it not make sense to make
> > those updates available? After all, before the updates are released to
> > Extras, many users are going to have Qt apps that won't work on their
> > N900. Surely we want to correct that as soon as possible. And what about
> > existing Qt 4.5 based apps in Extras? Should the be demoted when PR1.2
> > is released?
>
> I know of at least one case where Maemo-specific changes were made in Qt
> 4.5 for Maemo and are no longer available in Qt 4.6 (related to Hildon
> integration). So it is entirely possible that some apps which previously
> compiled will not do so after the upgrade.

Is this a library-only issue or a system issue? i.e. is the problem in the new
qt library or (let's say) in the capabilities of the new system's components
(e.g. removed dbus interfaces).

If this is a library-only issue, then there is no reason (except from disk
space, but /opt should be a viable solution) why you could not have the newer
versions of "problematic" libraries coexist with their old versions. For
example, one could have both libqt4-core and libqt4-6-core. Old apps will
still be linked against libqt4-core while new apps will be linked against
libqt4-6-core. Then, at some point at the future (PR1.3 ?) you could
completely remove those old libraries.

... then again I do not have much experience on doing such things.
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Graham Cobb wrote:
> I can't say I like this. My personal view is that there will be a lot of
> people running earlier software for quite a long time. How long do Nokia
> believe it will be before 80% of new devices being sold in retail stores have
> PR1.2 pre-installed? Can we keep track of stats showing how many people are
> accessing the old repository?

How can you not like this? What is your reasoning? You brought this same
response to the last Maemo update, and I still do not understand it.

If a user has access to downloading apps, then they will be notified of
the Maemo update. If they want a new app, they must update Maemo, but
they can continue using their old apps as long as they want. Refusing to
update because of a personal preference should be discounted. Security
updates, new features, and significant bug fixes should trump any
personal preference about updates to Maemo itself.
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

>> This will effectively mean that the 'old' Extras will not get any updates.
>> New versions of applications will go to fremantle-1.2 Extras.
>> Extras-devel
>> and Extras-testing will not be changed, as they are expected to run the
>> latest and greatest anyway.
>
>What happens to apps (especially those with Qt dependencies) _currently_ in
>Extras, i.e., how will they get to the fremantle1.2 Extras repo ?

Why not have 2 repos for Extras

1 called Extras Legacy (aka current Extras)
1 called Extras (aka fremantle-1.2 Extras)

The only inconvenience I can think of is users have an addtional repo on the
list, shouldn't do any harm!

Cheers
--
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Maemo-5-PR1-2-and-Extras-tp4625110p4626546.html
Sent from the maemo-developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Thomas Tanner wrote:
> Forced upgrades of some components for installation of a new package is
> standard practice for all package management systems (keyword version
> dependencies).
> I think the main problem is that the mp-fremantle-pr packages
> hardcodes the exact version of all PR packages instead of specifying the
> minimum version. If a user could selectively upgrade a core package
> without conflicting with mp-fremantle-pr they would not be forced to
> completely upgrade the firmware for new extras apps.
> (BTW, the broken dependency specification in the PR also makes it
> impossible to remove unnecessary language packs)

I agree with you completely with your first post, however, you touched
on why Maemo doesn't work this way.

For the time being, the proposal Niels suggested is the least messy.
We're not creating a new Maemo 5 sub-version this way.

Maemo/Nokia folks - is there any plans on implementing the brainstorm
idea[1] on open-source packages any time before MeeGo? This would
alleviate some of the update mess. Closed binaries could then be
included into a smaller "Maemo 5" update that can work with the Extras
repo without having to branch it.

[1]
http://maemo.org/community/brainstorm/view/undelayed_bugfix_releases_for_nokia_open_source_packages-002/
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

On Wednesday 24 February 2010 16:42:16 Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> the Maemo update. If they want a new app, they must update Maemo, but
> they can continue using their old apps as long as they want. Refusing to
> update because of a personal preference should be discounted. Security
> updates, new features, and significant bug fixes should trump any
> personal preference about updates to Maemo itself.

Still, that does not address the question of regressions. For example WiFi
(which I use a lot) in 51-1 had a regression that was in my particular case
so bad I had to revert to 42-11 until a fix was introduced with 2-8.

Regards,
Attila
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Hi,

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Attila Csipa <maemo@csipa.in.rs> wrote:
> The complications stem from the way this is handled in Maemo, at least for Qt.
> I just hope this slightly complex PR1.2 Qt transition is not a snowball
> effect of how some Maemoisms were added (hacked :) ) into Qt4.5/4.6 and even
> more that this is not a sign of how these things will be handled in the
> future. Backwards compatibility was something Qt4 was very well known for,
> and desktop environments often bump their Qt versions for backports (hell,
> even LTS versions of Ubuntu did that), without requiring
> repository/application hoop-jumping.
Qt packaging now is managed by Qt team and this will be first official
Qt-supported version of Qt to Maemo platform.
So many two-letter acronyms in one sentence...

Anyway, this is a bit different from desktop case as package
maintainers are changed for Qt delivery (from community volunteers to
Nokia Trolls) and apparently the way to package is changed as well. I
have not compared it with the Debian or other distributions' builds
though.

Whatever is included in Qt build for Maemo is maintained by Trolltech
team. This should leave questions regarding the compatibility
answered, I hope. And actual source code is in qt.gitorious.org.

--
/ Alexander Bokovoy
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Venomrush wrote:
> Why not have 2 repos for Extras
>
> 1 called Extras Legacy (aka current Extras)
> 1 called Extras (aka fremantle-1.2 Extras)
>
> The only inconvenience I can think of is users have an addtional repo on the
> list, shouldn't do any harm!

They will fragment the Maemo 5 community unless the auto-builder will
build across both repos, as I will not be updating my apps on a "Legacy"
repo if one is created.

The way you propose makes it seem like Nokia is releasing a whole new
Maemo version (Maemo 5 -> Maemo 5.99), which is not what should be
visible to the end-user. Maemo 5 should continue being Maemo 5.
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: maemo-developers-bounces@maemo.org [mailto:maemo-developers-
> bounces@maemo.org] On Behalf Of ext Niels Breet
> Sent: 24 February, 2010 14:19
> To: Attila Csipa
> Cc: maemo-developers@maemo.org
> Subject: Re: Maemo 5 PR1.2 and Extras
>
> > On Wednesday 24 February 2010 12:21:45 Niels Breet wrote:
> >

> > What happens to apps (especially those with Qt dependencies)
> _currently_
> > in Extras, i.e., how will they get to the fremantle1.2 Extras repo ?
> >
> The Qt apps are currently blocked from being promoted to prevent
> issues.
> The fremantle-1.2 repository will probably need to be 'legacy' clean.
> Qt
> 4.5.3 is not available in Extras and will probably not be available on
> any
> repository enabled by default on the device. This means that
> applications
> depending on this, will not work.
>
> Those applications need actual changes to work with Qt4.6 iirc.

Some may and some don't. Some Qt apps compiled against 4.5 will work with 4.6 without any issues. I do not know which part of the ABI has changed, so no idea what would break. Sorry, no statistics on this one, just some small personal tests.

To be safe it would make sense to recompile the Qt apps with the 1.2 SDK when letting them to Fremantle-1.2.

Tero

> >
> > Regards,
> > Attila
> >
>
> --
> Niels Breet
> maemo.org webmaster
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> maemo-developers mailing list
> maemo-developers@maemo.org
> https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Hi,

Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> How can you not like this? What is your reasoning? You brought this same
> response to the last Maemo update, and I still do not understand it.

Let's say that there are 10,000 applications in Extras.

Now every N900 owner can get all of those apps.

Then a new version of the SDK comes out, which is not backwards
compatible. A number of potentially bad things can happen:

1. New uploads get compiled with the new SDK, and get downloaded onto
phones with the old OS, where they don't work.

2. Developers working with the old SDK upload applications which don't
even build with the new SDK

3. To mitigate 2, we decide that all Extras apps need to be recompiled
with the new SDK, resulting in a number of applications which fit into
both the categories above - some apps stop working until the user
upgrades the firmware, other apps don't build & require changes and an
SDK upgrade from the developer.

All of these push inconvenience to the phone user & application
developer - all unnecessary overhead, especially if the APIs haven't
changed and there are issues with run-time library versions (as we saw
with PR 1.0 to 1.1).

The only way to avoid badness when upgrading the SDK in a
not-backwards-compatible way is to have scratchbox, every developer copy
of the SDK, and the N900 firmware all upgrade at the same time. I
imagine that this is why Graham's not happy about an SDK which isn't
backwards compatible.

Cheers,
Dave.

--
maemo.org docsmaster
Email: dneary@maemo.org
Jabber: bolsh@jabber.org

_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

>>> How will this PR1.2 change be reflected on the maemo.org dowloads
>>> section (i.e. how will it be ensured that the user gets presented the
>>> correct install-this link) ?
>>
>> A different .install file can be offered based on your browser string.
>>
>
> How are you going to make sure you catch all of them ? For MicroB, okay,
> but Firefox, Tear, Midori, whatnot ? Does not really sound like a foolprof
> solution (you also need to sync with Maemo Select, and just hope that
> there are not too many links floating around) :(
>

I see no way to support other browsers if they don't expose the installed
OS version. But I think this is how Ovi checks it too?

Maemo Select links directly to us, so there is no issue with .install
files there.

>>> Second, is there a safety mechanism considered that will disallow
>>> inclusion of 'the other' firmware's repository to prevent potential
>>> version-related breakage ?
>>
>> There is not a lot we can do there. If a user adds the repository on an
>> 'old' device, some applications just won't install because
>> dependencies are missing.
>
> There are a few more troublesome scenarios that can present themselves -
> like if someone adds the old repo, and has a repo-refresh issue with the
> new one afterwards (I often have this problem with extras-testing and
> extras-devel). In both this and the scenario you mention, H-A-M/apt will
> prevent downgrades, luckily, but it's easy to cut off your own upgrade
> path if you DO manage to install something from the wrong repo.

If you break something, you get to keep both pieces. Being able to break
things yourself is a powerful thing. I don't see how we can prevent
installing something from a wrong repo.


>>> What happens to apps (especially those with Qt dependencies)
>>> _currently_
>>> in Extras, i.e., how will they get to the fremantle1.2 Extras repo ?
>>>
>> The Qt apps are currently blocked from being promoted to prevent
>> issues.
>
> It would be helpful if this would be visible from the testing page, too
> (not
> just for 4.6). I have several Qt4.5 dependent packages in the QA queue
> nearing required quarantine delay fulfillment. It's just a waste of
> tester and developer time then.
>

Well, no. They can still end up in fremantle for PR1.1 and lower.

>> The fremantle-1.2 repository will probably need to be 'legacy' clean.
>> Qt
>> 4.5.3 is not available in Extras and will probably not be available on
>> any repository enabled by default on the device. This means that
>> applications depending on this, will not work.
>>
>> Those applications need actual changes to work with Qt4.6 iirc.
>>
>
> Okay, so we basically ditch Qt4.5-compiled applications currently in
> Extras.
> Is the Ovi team aware of this as there are quite a few Qt 4.5 applications
> in Ovi repositories,too ? Will they get their fremantle1.2 repo, too (I
> know, ask them -> wait for a meaningful response so long that it becomes
> moot :) ) or will they hope Qt ABI compatibility gets them through ? And
> if you think Ovi has no bearing on Extras downloads, take into
> consideration Firefox is in Ovi, so if browser string based info is used,
> it will bite you if it's not handled in a timely manner :)

Don't know what Ovi is going to do, but my bet is that Nokia aims at Qt4.6
anyway to in line with Symbian?

Just trying to do the best thing for everybody, easiest would be just to
not care about older OS versions.
>
> Regards,
> Attila
>
>

--
Niels Breet
maemo.org webmaster


_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

> They will fragment the Maemo 5 community unless the auto-builder will
> build across both repos, as I will not be updating my apps on a "Legacy"
> repo if one is created.
>
> The way you propose makes it seem like Nokia is releasing a whole new
> Maemo version (Maemo 5 -> Maemo 5.99), which is not what should be
> visible to the end-user. Maemo 5 should continue being Maemo 5.

It's such a big change that we're discussing about it right now.

You do not need to update any apps in Legacy. Apps in Legacy remains the
same and does not get any further development work.

It's there so:
1. Users can browse pre-PR1.2 apps that are already working (apps without
needing to update to work with PR1.2)
2. Apps in Legacy repo not working in PR1.2 gets updated and put into the
new Extras & get removed from Legacy repo too

Post-PR1.2, all development effort should be put into updating apps for the
new Extras.

I hope it's abit clearer now.

Cheers
--
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Maemo-5-PR1-2-and-Extras-tp4625110p4626768.html
Sent from the maemo-developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Dave Neary on 02/24/2010 10:01 AM wrote:
> 1. New uploads get compiled with the new SDK, and get downloaded onto
> phones with the old OS, where they don't work.

How? The only way that could happen is if a power-user downloaded the
file manually and attempted to use dpkg manually. This should be frowned
upon.

>
> 2. Developers working with the old SDK upload applications which don't
> even build with the new SDK

The auto-builder builds our apps. Their builds would fail and never make
it to Extras.

>
> 3. To mitigate 2, we decide that all Extras apps need to be recompiled
> with the new SDK, resulting in a number of applications which fit into
> both the categories above - some apps stop working until the user
> upgrades the firmware, other apps don't build& require changes and an
> SDK upgrade from the developer.
>

It happens all the time in other Linux distributions. Fedora just went
through the Qt4.5 to 4.6 transition itself! I don't see why there is
resistance to this when it is a very minor change. If such resistance is
warranted, let's call this Maemo 5.2 instead of Maemo 5.
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Dave Neary <dneary@maemo.org> wrote:

> 2. Developers working with the old SDK upload applications which don't
> even build with the new SDK

That's their own screwup, I guess (which they notice immediately when
trying to upload).

The group most impacted are the Qt users, which are quite likely to be
eagerly waiting for 4.6.2 anyway (so it won't come as a surprise).

> The only way to avoid badness when upgrading the SDK in a
> not-backwards-compatible way is to have scratchbox, every developer copy
> of the SDK, and the N900 firmware all upgrade at the same time. I

Undoubtedly there will be certain degree of badness. Niels' current
suggestion at least avoids the badness on user end.

Barring regressions, we can probably expect everybody to upgrade to
1.2 in timely manner.

--
Ville M. Vainio
http://tinyurl.com/vainio
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Venomrush wrote:
> You do not need to update any apps in Legacy. Apps in Legacy remains the
> same and does not get any further development work.

That's what Niels is proposing, unless I am mistaken.

fremantle = Legacy
fremantle-1.2 = The new "Extras"
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

> You do not need to update any apps in Legacy. Apps in Legacy remains the
> same and does not get any further development work.

Hmm sorry for the confusion, I should say if apps in Legacy are getting
updates, they'll be move to Extras.

It's not exactly what Niels's proposing, but just my suggestion.
--
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Maemo-5-PR1-2-and-Extras-tp4625110p4626893.html
Sent from the maemo-developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

On Wednesday 24 February 2010 17:25:20 Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Dave Neary on 02/24/2010 10:01 AM wrote:
> > 1. New uploads get compiled with the new SDK, and get downloaded onto
> > phones with the old OS, where they don't work.
>
> How? The only way that could happen is if a power-user downloaded the
> file manually and attempted to use dpkg manually. This should be frowned
> upon.

.install files, which have been increasingly stated as the preferred method of
installing software, also contain repository information. That's how Ovi
works, that's how Maemo Select works, and that's how maemo.org/downloads
works, so it's not unfathomable that users end up with the wrong
repositories.

Regard,
Attila
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

On Wednesday 24 February 2010 15:42:16 Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Graham Cobb wrote:
> > I can't say I like this. My personal view is that there will be a lot of
> > people running earlier software for quite a long time. How long do Nokia
> > believe it will be before 80% of new devices being sold in retail stores
> > have PR1.2 pre-installed? Can we keep track of stats showing how many
> > people are accessing the old repository?
>
> How can you not like this? What is your reasoning? You brought this same
> response to the last Maemo update, and I still do not understand it.

I am sure we wil have to agree to differ but you asked my reasoning, so here
it is...

I think that many users will never upgrade the OS, and of those who do, their
upgrades will be spread over a period of many months. As a hobbyist
developer I release and support my software because I like to make it
available to people. I don't think the Maemo infrastructure should prevent
me from supporting my users who choose not to upgrade, and nor should it
prevent some new app I create from having access to those users.

Why do I think many people will not upgrade? This device is a phone. I never
upgraded my last phone, I have never upgraded my work-provided Blackberry, I
don't know a single person amongst my friends who has ever upgraded their
phone OS, for any reason. Many people will be very worried about upgrading
the phone OS -- this is an expensive device: "if it ain't broke, don't fix
it". I don't have any data but my guess is that 50% of people who buy an
N900 will never upgrade the OS on it.

We have some very limited data from the earlier Maemo devices. Those were not
phones -- they were much more like computers. I think most people upgraded
them but still some chose not to (even though the first version of the 770
software had a serious data corruption bug). I still support those users and
I would like to be able to continue to support my N900 users who choose not
to upgrade.

More seriously, I believe that there is still no Vodafone UK release of
PR1.1.1 (is there of PR1.1 yet?). The customised software releases are not
released at the same time as the general release -- those users cannot
upgrade until their operator chooses to release the new version (which may be
never!).

> If a user has access to downloading apps, then they will be notified of
> the Maemo update. If they want a new app, they must update Maemo, but
> they can continue using their old apps as long as they want. Refusing to
> update because of a personal preference should be discounted. Security
> updates, new features, and significant bug fixes should trump any
> personal preference about updates to Maemo itself.

Sorry, no. I choose not to discount personal preferences.

I'm not expecting you to agree but you asked why. You are free to choose that
you will not support users running on anything other than the latest OS.
Just don't force the same decision on me.

Graham
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

On Wednesday 24 February 2010 16:26:44 Ville M. Vainio wrote:
> Barring regressions, we can probably expect everybody to upgrade to
> 1.2 in timely manner.

I disagree, but I may be completely wrong. It will be very interesting to
see. What do you consider "timely"? 3 months? My prediction: in 3 months
time, >50% of N900 devices will still be checking the "fremantle", not
the "fremantle-1.2" repository.

Graham
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Graham Cobb <g+770@cobb.uk.net> wrote:

> On Wednesday 24 February 2010 16:26:44 Ville M. Vainio wrote:
>> Barring regressions, we can probably expect everybody to upgrade to
>> 1.2 in timely manner.
>
> I disagree, but I may be completely wrong.  It will be very interesting to
> see.  What do you consider "timely"?  3 months?  My prediction: in 3 months
> time, >50% of N900 devices will still be checking the "fremantle", not
> the "fremantle-1.2" repository.

My guess would be few weeks. N900 is an "enthusiast" device, for
better or worse.

--
Ville M. Vainio
http://tinyurl.com/vainio
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

On 24.02.10 18:04, Graham Cobb wrote:
> Why do I think many people will not upgrade? This device is a phone.

The N900 is a mobile computer.
If you want to use it as a phone, i.e. without applications from extras
or Ovi, then there is no need to upgrade the firmware.
If you want to use it as a computer by installing applications,
you should upgrade your OS, especially to get security updates for a
Internet-centric device.
Maintaining software and working around bugs for every minor release is
a nightmare. Only for different major releases and devices it is justified.

--
Thomas Tanner ------
email: tanner@gmx.de
GnuPG: 1024/5924D4DD
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Graham Cobb <g+770@cobb.uk.net> wrote:

> I'm not expecting you to agree but you asked why.  You are free to choose that
> you will not support users running on anything other than the latest OS.
> Just don't force the same decision on me.

Not upgrading (again, barring regressions that are a sad exception) is
a sort of statement about willingness to disconnect from the
mainstream of community (their bugreports are worthless, they won't be
checking out the new Qt apps etc). I don't think it's community's
(here, I mean extras infrastructure) to keep catering for people that
don't want to go where the platform is going.

--
Ville M. Vainio
http://tinyurl.com/vainio
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

On Wednesday 24 February 2010 17:23:19 Ville M. Vainio wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Graham Cobb <g+770@cobb.uk.net> wrote:
> > I'm not expecting you to agree but you asked why.  You are free to choose
> > that you will not support users running on anything other than the latest
> > OS. Just don't force the same decision on me.
>
> Not upgrading (again, barring regressions that are a sad exception) is
> a sort of statement about willingness to disconnect from the
> mainstream of community (their bugreports are worthless, they won't be
> checking out the new Qt apps etc). I don't think it's community's
> (here, I mean extras infrastructure) to keep catering for people that
> don't want to go where the platform is going.

That is completely different. Maemo Extras is not about community members.
It is about the hundreds of thousands of ordinary users of the device who
don't even know there is a Maemo community -- they just want to enjoy the
apps they can download to their phone.

I don't make my apps available for community members -- most community members
could do that for themselves -- I make them available for the people who are
NOT community members but are just users of the device! These are people who
have never (ever) logged into a forum (yes, I realise that people on this
list under 20 years old won't believe such people actually exist, but they
do!).

They are the ones who won't see any point in upgrading. And the ones I have
in mind when talking about how Extras should work.

Graham
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

On Wednesday 24 February 2010 17:18:29 Thomas Tanner wrote:
> On 24.02.10 18:04, Graham Cobb wrote:
> > Why do I think many people will not upgrade? This device is a phone.
>
> The N900 is a mobile computer.

I am talking about the people who perceive it to be a phone. "Like the
iPhone".

> Maintaining software and working around bugs for every minor release is
> a nightmare. Only for different major releases and devices it is justified.

You are welcome to your view. Mine is different. And the infrastructure
should not prevent me from supporting users who choose not to upgrade, if I
wish.

Graham
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers

Graham Cobb wrote:
> My personal view is that there will be a lot of
> people running earlier software for quite a long time. How long do Nokia
> believe it will be before 80% of new devices being sold in retail stores have
> PR1.2 pre-installed?

FYI

My wife must have done an 'ignore' on a Maemo5 update sometime in oct/nov.

The device never reminded her again. She only got pr1.1.1 because she noticed my
device made a sound on account connections and hers didn't... I did 2 upgrades
in succession. Normal users wouldn't have even noticed.

I've filed a bug but if this is normal behaviour then I guess a *lot* of devices
will never be upgraded.

David

--
"Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon once..."
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers