ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[NeoTheThird <neo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 24.02.2017 22:49, Mitchell Reese wrote:
> On 25/02/17 08:14, Rodney Dawes wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-02-24 at 21:37 +0100, Matthias Apitz wrote:
> > > Rodney, three questions about that:
> > >
> > > The Fairphone 2 is, AFAIK, a 32-bit device. What will be shown at
> > > MWC,
> > > announced by Canonical, will this be snap or click based?
> > The FP2 port is like any other current device on UBports. It is the
> > same phone image base as all other current devices. There are currently
> > no snap based images for phones or tablets.
> >
> > > The word 'image' for the thing the Community could build, hides some
> > > fundamental detail: At the moment we need some Android kernel parts
> > > to
> > > control the hardware of the mobile device. Do you really think that
> > > there will be other images apart of the 'officially supported images'
> > > in
> > > the near future?
> > An "image" in the snap world will just be a thing which contains a set
> > of default installed snaps, which you flash on a device. This means at
> > least the ubuntu-core snap, a kernel snap (which may be kernel +
> > android container bits, i'm not sure if the specific there have been
> > ironed out), and the unity8, mir, pulseaudio, cups, etc… snaps. It will
> > not be the same as how system images work today.
> >
> > I see no reason why there couldn't be unofficial ports, and soon after
> > we have the details worked out on how to build those images and flash
> > them to devices.
> >
> > > Why Canonical is not supporting the existing BQ E4.5 and E5 devices
> > > with
> > > a new officially supported image and why you leave us alone (apart of
> > > security updates)
> > > and without any visible upgrade path, not even to a new hardware?
> > This is not something I am able to answer.
>
> For the record, I also find it a bit irritating at the lack of 
> communication from Canonical - keeping the community in the loop seems 
> a no brainer to me. That said, I think its too early to tell what will 
> be supported, and what won't - how easy it will be, etc. I think this 
> is mainly because no one really knows yet. Once the project is 
> snapified we'll have more info, even if that involves working out 
> ourselves what we can flash the system on.
>
> I'm going to throw my ring into the hat and defend Canonical's lack of 
> communication. Given how people have been jumping on /every/ bit of 
> 'official' media to point to the demise of this project, I can 
> understand how Canonical might want to stay silent until they know 
> what is going on. Personally, I think this sucks, but can understand 
> the idea behind it. Lets wait and see what happens.
>
> Mitchell
IMHO the reason why so many people are all over the tiniest bit of 
official information is that there is so little official information. I 
understand your point, but for a community-driven project, it would be 
nice to actually talk to the community...