[Dev] Qt in Tizen - project proposal
yesarang.kim at gmail.com
Wed Oct 23 10:21:39 GMT 2013
Thanks for your clarification.
But it's still vague what optionality means in your context.
IMO, optional library(or feature) in compliance is quite different
from downloadable and upgradable library. Optional feature means that
if one manufacturer chooses to support the feature, the feature
implementation should be compliant to the related compliance
specification. But if you want to make Qt downloadable and upgradable
as a separate package, it should be dependent only on publicly
available API in each profile.
I guess that current Qt implementation is dependent on various core
components which are not officially available to applications.
If my guess is right, you are thinking that Qt should be an optional
feature in some profile's compliance specification, aren't you?
Could you clarify more clearly what you mean by "add-on, optional
packages" to discuss this matter more effectively? or do you just want
to see Qt is supported on Tizen in one way or another?
Yoonsoo Kim, Tizen Platform Architect
Mobile R&D Office,
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
2013/10/23 Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com>:
> On quarta-feira, 23 de outubro de 2013 08:41:01, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
>> On 23 October 2013 05:56, Kim, Yoonsoo <yesarang.kim at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > But I have a quick question. I think this question is very important
>> > because the answer will set the scope of discussion on this matter.
>> > Do you intend to include Qt in Tizen compliance? If you do, in what
>> > profiles do you want to include Qt?
>> > I think whether Qt is included in profile(s) or not will make huge
>> > architectural differences.
>> Hi Yoonsoo,
>> At the moment we're proposing Qt as add-on, optional packages.
>> Yes that's true, Tizen architecture would have to change towards even
>> more modular if Qt is a mandatory component. We would like to leave
>> final decision to owners of individual profiles, offering our support
>> and expertise.
> The same way that we may have a "Mobile minus native" compliance profile, we
> might end up with a "Mobile plus Qt".
> But I agree with Jaroslaw here: it's too early to tell. Right now, it's more
> about integrating it with the infrastructure, making sure it builds, works
> properly if installed by an OEM.
> In addition, the on-going discussion of 3rdparty library installation feature
> can potentially have a lot of impact on this. If we come up with a way for 3rd
> party libraries to be installed, this could be a way for distributing Qt to
> devices without affecting compliance.
> Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
> Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
> Dev mailing list
> Dev at lists.tizen.org
More information about the Dev