ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Rodney Dawes <rodney.dawes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.