ubuntu-tv team mailing list archive

[Thomas Mashos <thomas@xxxxxxxxxx>]

That's not 100% accurate. You still would have multiple packages (one
for desktop, one for ubuntutv), otherwise you are making every user
download more than they need and everything gets bloated. You could
have a single code base as well, as a single source package can create
multiple binary packages.


On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Ian Santopietro <isantop@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> That's the big one, but it also takes a lot of load off of the servers,
> since you only need one copy of the package.
>
> On Nov 29, 2011 9:04 PM, "Ian Nicholson" <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/29/2011 10:01 PM, Ian Santopietro wrote:
>>
>> We could use a custom flag in DEBIAN/control or something in software
>> center to mark Apps as TV friendly. This would cover the majority of games,
>> plus any apps with an interface specifically for TV. This would allow for an
>> App to have two interfaces (this is defined in Gnome 3), without requiring
>> separate packages or code bases. That way we could add in an option to
>> software center to allow the installation of "desktop apps". That might be a
>> better option that using separate repositories, though it would require
>> extra effort on the part of the repository maintainer.
>>
>> On Nov 29, 2011 7:59 PM, "Ian Nicholson" <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/29/2011 08:50 PM, Ian Santopietro wrote:
>>>
>>> > Other Ian - What do you mean when you say "desktop functionality"?
>>>
>>> I mean having a full desktop environment, and access to apps that haven't
>>> been optimized for TVs.
>>>
>>> On Nov 29, 2011 5:36 PM, "Ian Nicholson" <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Other Ian - What do you mean when you say "desktop functionality"?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Sent from my Palm Pre
>>> > ________________________________
>>> > On Nov 29, 2011 18:09, Ian Santopietro <isantop@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > What happened to Ubuntu One? I never said they'd be independent, I
>>> > said they'd function differently from each other, since most users
>>> > will use a TV for different things from what they use their computer
>>> > for. But everything would be linked to their Ubuntu One Cloud. Nothing
>>> > would necessarily be independent. Being connected to a personal
>>> > network doesn't mean it needs to function exactly identically to, or
>>> > even have the option to function exactly identically to, a desktop
>>> > computer. They have to access the same content, and synchronize
>>> > progress through this content. Once you download a movie to your
>>> > desktop, you can start watching it on the TV, and finish form the
>>> > place you left off on your laptop before bed. Once you start listening
>>> > to music on the TV, you can move over to your smartphone and drive to
>>> > work without losing your place in the song. Complete and total system
>>> > integration with Ubuntu One; and wrapping it up in a comfortable,
>>> > simple to use 10ft UI; is where Ubuntu TV really has the possibility
>>> > to shine and succeed, not by emulating Desktop functionality.
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:20, Jo-Erlend Schinstad
>>> > <joerlend.schinstad@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > > I give up.
>>> > >
>>> > > Creating independent Ubuntu appliances makes no sense to me. I won't
>>> > > buy
>>> > > something like that just because it has an Ubuntu sticker on it. It's
>>> > > either
>>> > > a part of my personal network, or it's not. If it's not, then I'd
>>> > > rather
>>> > > purchase one from Samsung or LG or something. Single user, one
>>> > > process,
>>> > > unconnected...
>>> > >
>>> > > That's not my cup of tea.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Jo-Erlend Schinstad
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-tv
>>> > > Post to     : ubuntu-tv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-tv
>>> > > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Ian Santopietro
>>> >
>>> > Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
>>> > See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
>>> >
>>> > "Eala Earendel enlga beorohtast
>>> >  Ofer middangeard monnum sended"
>>> >
>>> > Pa gur yv y porthaur?
>>> >
>>> > Public GPG key (RSA):
>>> >
>>> > http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x412F52DB1BBF1234
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-tv
>>> > Post to : ubuntu-tv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-tv
>>> > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>>
>>> Ah I see.  This has been something I've been considering, why don't we
>>> just have a special repo for UbuntuTV, and then allow the users to enable
>>> the other repos as they wish, once they've been warned that it's not
>>> optimal?
>>> That way we could leverage the Software Center as a way to install
>>> applications like games.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-tv
>>> Post to     : ubuntu-tv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-tv
>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>>
>> So it seems like the main advantage is that it would mean only one code
>> base that the developers would have worry about.  Is that a valid
>> assessment?
>
>
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-tv
> Post to     : ubuntu-tv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-tv
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>



-- 
Thomas Mashos