On Mon, 2014-08-18 at 22:19 +0300, Alberto Mardegan wrote: > On 08/18/2014 10:12 PM, Rodney Dawes wrote: > >> This is how I think this could be done, and please feel free to come > >> forward if you have any ideas to make it better: > > > > For what it's worth, click packages do not have dependencies, so > > splitting the plug-in and the app may not be all that useful. I'm not > > really sure what the best solution to this problem is though, as having > > every app which wants to use an account on an arbitrary web service > > provide their own copy of an online-accounts plug-in is not a great > > solution. > > I think we could add the account plugins into the base system as they > become popular. >
We could, but I think we should try to work in the opposite direction. Moving them into the base system means more strict requirements on what changes they get and when they get updated, and requires a system image update to get new ones, unless they remain in click packages, which still has the same problem of them being in click packages and click packages not having dependencies. If they were moved to the .debs instead, we'd also need new frameworks so that apps depending on the framework plug-in could declare that; otherwise we can have broken apps. If multiple click packages provide the same account plug-in, does online-accounts show it multiple times, or does it get limited to the one account type being shown in the list? Avoiding duplicates will at least be good in the meantime, while apps do have to provide their own copies. -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone Post to : ubuntu-phone@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
