08:01:09 <Jaymzz_> #startmeeting Sailfish OS, open source, collaboration – August 9th 2017
08:01:09 <merbot> Meeting started Wed Aug  9 08:01:09 2017 UTC.  The chair is Jaymzz_. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.merproject.org/wiki/Meetings.
08:01:09 <merbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
08:01:21 <Jaymzz_> #info Meeting information and agenda can be found here: https://lists.sailfishos.org/pipermail/devel/2017-August/007964.html
08:01:31 <Jaymzz_> I am the meeting’s chairperson today and will be doing my best to keep time and order. Please behave, respect the timings and be gentle.
08:01:43 <Jaymzz_> #topic Brief introduction (5 min). Please prefix your name/handle with # info
08:02:07 <Jaymzz_> #info James Noori, Sailor @ Jolla / Meeting chair
08:02:23 <LarstiQ> #info Wouter van Heijst, infra at Jolla
08:02:51 <nh1402> #info nh1402, community member
08:03:10 <nekron> #info Nekron, community member
08:03:30 <oniongarlic> #info Kaj-Michael Lang, community member/app developer
08:03:32 <ced117> #info Cedric Heintz, community member
08:04:45 <Drummer12> #info Drummer12, community member
08:05:43 <sledges> o/
08:06:17 <hge> "o/" is an invalid command
08:06:44 <Mister_Magister> #info Mister_Magister, community member
08:06:55 <Jaymzz_> I don't see r0kk3rz here, and first topic is his. I think we should start with nh1402's topic since he's here
08:07:21 <Mister_Magister> i almost forgot about ut
08:07:29 <nh1402> Mister_Magister: was an alternate to the topic
08:07:35 <Mister_Magister> Jaymzz_: but i'm alternative to r0kk3rz tipic
08:07:48 <Jaymzz_> Mister_Magister: Ah I missed that :)
08:08:03 <Jaymzz_> alright we continue with r0kk3rz topic then :)
08:08:14 <Jaymzz_> #topic App Plugins for Harbour Apps (15 min, asked by r0kk3rz )
08:08:24 <Jaymzz_> #info Lets say you had a modular front-end App, and it has pluggable back-ends for different services, how can we accomplish such a thing in Harbour? Since currently it requires all additional things to be packaged into the one RPM. eg. if someone makes a libpurple front-end App and doesnt want to add all the possible libpurple services into the one package.
08:09:09 <Jaymzz_> We have LarstiQ and sledges today answering technical questions. So the stage is yours people! :)
08:09:27 <LarstiQ> eh, only for what I'm qualified for ;P
08:09:35 <Jaymzz_> Yes :D
08:09:53 <pketo> I'm also here :)
08:10:02 <Mister_Magister> Well when i make app based on libpurple ina pp i'm using only libpurple but there are many plugins so i can't include all of them.
08:10:31 <Mister_Magister> like libpurple-facebook and other packages so i would have to make separate apps for every plugin or something
08:10:46 <Jaymzz_> pketo: o/
08:11:07 <Mister_Magister> so we need solution in harbour for that
08:11:23 <chriadam_> you mean, some form of .so bundling?
08:11:56 <chriadam_> long term, flatpak runtimes might help here.  short term, I defer to pketo's wisdom.
08:11:56 <pvuorela> maybe it was more as an example, but libpurple is not allowed in harbour to begin with.
08:12:04 <Mister_Magister> i think libpurple plugins works in other way than only .so file
08:12:20 <LarstiQ> pvuorela: depending on libpurple, or bundling libpurple?
08:12:25 <Mister_Magister> pvuorela: why?
08:12:45 <r0kk3rz> sorry guys, i was being accosted by managers :)
08:12:50 <pvuorela> LarstiQ: depending. but yea, app could bundle a separate instance which might apply better here.
08:12:54 <Mister_Magister> r0kk3rz: my man!
08:13:17 <LarstiQ> pvuorela: iirc that's the route that has been discussed, and then the plugin problem still stands
08:14:03 <Mister_Magister> I got this problem when planning to put my app to harbour but it can show later too
08:14:23 <r0kk3rz> pvuorela: libpurple not allowed in harbour? even packaged in an app?
08:14:28 <Jaymzz_> 4 minutes remains of this topic
08:14:49 <pvuorela> r0kk3rz: using system's libpurple is not allowed. separate instance inside the application is ok.
08:15:16 <LarstiQ> r0kk3rz, Mister_Magister: is the issue that a "libpurple plugin" app will not get through QA because it depends on another app to work?
08:15:21 <LarstiQ> or is there some technical problem
08:15:51 <r0kk3rz> beyond libpurple i can see situations where you have modular apps and dont want to install all the modules in one package
08:15:53 <Mister_Magister> LarstiQ: i would have bo make every libpueple plugin as another app in harbour
08:16:10 <tbr> Not that it matters for me but does that also disqualify it from being used together with the system telepathy?
08:16:35 <LarstiQ> Mister_Magister: 1) is that a problem? 2) you could make bundles of plugins, like xmms2 packaging in Debian does
08:17:05 <Mister_Magister> r0kk3rz: can explain better than me :D
08:17:20 <chriadam_> Jaymzz_: we might need some more time for this topic
08:17:45 <Jaymzz_> chriadam_: you need 5 minutes or 10? :)
08:17:56 <Mister_Magister> LarstiQ: can apps inside harbour depend on each other?\
08:18:21 <r0kk3rz> i guess the question is, would we want to handle modules as 'seperate apps' in harbour with a dependency. or is it up to the app developer to download modules to the main apps data directory
08:18:22 <chriadam_> r0kk3rz: can you describe what the issue is?  I'm confused what the "wanted behaviour" is.  i.e., is it that you'd like to submit a single package which contains all of your dependencies (including potential plugins for those deps) OR is it that oyu want to potentially install some "partial" thing which can then be extended later on by OTHER packages/apps?
08:18:23 <pketo> Harbour at the moment does not allow dependencies
08:18:29 <sledges> are we on the other side?
08:18:33 <sledges> :D
08:18:41 <sledges> apparently meeting is on
08:18:46 <sledges> somewhere in a parallel universe
08:18:47 <Mister_Magister> pketo: this is what we are talking about
08:18:57 <Jaymzz_> sledges: Yeah man, don't you see our messages?
08:19:06 <Mister_Magister> sledges: what do you mean?
08:19:07 <LarstiQ> chriadam_: the latter
08:19:08 <Jaymzz_> #info 10 minutes added to this topic
08:19:18 <pketo> and dependencies between applications are not supported by the store backend either
08:19:57 <LarstiQ> pketo: I don't suppose there is programatic access to request an app to be installed either?
08:20:06 <LarstiQ> to let developers manually do that
08:20:07 <Mister_Magister> pketo: that's a problem we came to talk about. because if i make my app using only libpurple and make libpurple-facebook as another app it will work?
08:20:30 <LarstiQ> the alternative is letting the users resolve dependencies
08:20:42 <sledges> thanks Freenode for messing things up big time :D http://imgur.com/a/GEOQ5
08:20:55 <pketo> Mister_Magister: it will not work
08:21:10 <LarstiQ> sledges: have you configured your irc client to ignore all of us? ;P
08:21:20 <Mister_Magister> pketo: main app can work standalone but i want to make plugins for libpurple into sotre
08:21:41 <r0kk3rz> chriadam_: i'm mostly just talking about modular apps, and I wasnt sure how it would be feasable or desirable to handle that in a harbour situation. hence the discussion topic
08:21:51 <Jaymzz_> LarstiQ: He doesn't see any of our replies XD
08:22:07 <pketo> Mister_Magister: yes, I understand that, but it is not possible at the moment, and will require quite a lot of work on the server side to make it work
08:22:19 <LarstiQ> pketo: which part will not work?
08:22:27 <Mister_Magister> pketo: that's why we are talking isn't it :D
08:22:51 <pketo> LarstiQ: store api and the dynamic store repository does not handle the dependencies
08:22:57 <LarstiQ> pketo: right, but ignore that
08:22:58 <r0kk3rz> pketo: yes that was one of the reasons we wanted to raise this early, because it will take you guys time to figure out what you want to do, and do it :)
08:23:10 <LarstiQ> pketo: if you upload two seperate apps, and install them manually, that should work, right?
08:23:18 * sledges is now reading http://merproject.org/meetings/mer-meeting/2017/mer-meeting.2017-08-09-08.01.log.txt :P
08:23:42 <sledges> LarstiQ: yep, some parts of me or laptop decided had enough xD though /ignore says nuffin :P
08:23:43 <Mister_Magister> LarstiQ: that is quite solution if it would work
08:23:49 <pketo> LarstiQ: well yes, nothing prevents that,except maybe our QA rules
08:23:50 <chriadam_> LarstiQ: not necessarily.  QA might reject the "second" app if it immediately breaks / has no functionality (which will occur in the case that the QA person didn't first install the original app, I think)
08:23:51 <Mister_Magister> because main app can work standalone
08:24:02 <Mister_Magister> and plugins will not make anything by themselfs
08:24:06 <LarstiQ> pketo, chriadam_: hence my original question about QA
08:24:46 <LarstiQ> so we need to decide whether to allow that in QA, and/or if/how to allow formal dependencies
08:24:53 <chriadam_> right
08:25:07 <chriadam_> and then things like... per-app users potentially in teh future
08:25:16 <LarstiQ> the argument against presumably is that this is a rare case
08:25:23 <pketo> and then it is also not very good user experience, if one installs the lets say facebook plugin, and it doesn't do anything
08:25:29 <chriadam_> to allow another application to load a .so which was bundled as a dep within another application
08:25:42 <LarstiQ> pketo: tradeoff against not being able to do it at all
08:25:43 <nekron> so is sideloading plugins for harbour apps okay?
08:26:03 <LarstiQ> nekron: in what sense?
08:26:05 <Mister_Magister> it would be good to make that app plugins on the app page
08:26:12 <chriadam_> LarstiQ: I'm more worried about 1) security implications, 2) complication implications (i.e., if we add support for this, does it make it harder to transition to flatpaks or something in the future)
08:26:18 <Mister_Magister> so after installing app you can look at plugins
08:26:40 <nh1402> this plugin thing can apply to more than just the libpurple thing, if anyone is aware of Tasker on Android, it has tons of plugins
08:26:47 <LarstiQ> chriadam_: worried for which solution? Relaxing QA?
08:26:53 <r0kk3rz> chriadam_: yes i did think this would have to align with any sandboxing plans you might have
08:27:09 <Jaymzz_> 3 minutes left, do we need more time chriadam_ pketo r0kk3rz?
08:27:13 <chriadam_> LarstiQ: I don't know much about packaging or QA or anything related.  I just mean in general.
08:27:23 <chriadam_> Jaymzz_: probably not.  ball is in our court now to figure out plans I think
08:27:29 <chriadam_> r0kk3rz: do you agree ^ ?
08:27:52 <r0kk3rz> Jaymzz_: I think people have understood what we're asking, and can continue the discussion internally if its something jolla wants to pursue
08:28:18 <Mister_Magister> yeah i agree
08:28:21 <Jaymzz_> Alright, sounds good. I'll move on in a moment
08:28:26 <nekron> LarstiQ: I mean I upload my harbour app and create some app option to sideload, i.e. from a different source than harbour to expand functionality
08:29:03 <LarstiQ> nekron: imo that's not distinguishable from normal app behaviour
08:29:15 <Jaymzz_> #info Valid question. Sailors shall figure out new plans to resolve this problem
08:29:39 <pketo> well, for example situations has support for downloading additional plugins, iirc
08:30:06 <r0kk3rz> pketo: and thats handled within the app, downloading binaries to the app directory presumably
08:30:20 <pketo> something like that
08:30:26 <r0kk3rz> if thats harbor acceptable, then thats a possible solution
08:30:35 <Jaymzz_> Running over time guys keep that in mind and wrap it up please :)
08:30:53 <r0kk3rz> Jaymzz_: ok, done :)
08:30:58 <Jaymzz_> #topic Cookie Policy (10min, asked by nh1402)
08:31:09 <Jaymzz_> #info It's a legal requirement in the EU to warn users visiting your website that you use cookies, it doesn't look like together.jolla.com, merproject.org or jolla.com do this. Although the latter may not need to.
08:31:29 <Jaymzz_> IMO that should be easily doable
08:31:36 <nh1402> I think the topic speaks for itself
08:31:58 <nh1402> it's been a legal requirement for a while
08:32:08 <remote_> i wish european sites would also geo-ip target this 'bug'
08:32:17 <remote_> cause all other nations has to suffer from this bs
08:32:24 <LarstiQ> nh1402: afaik it is only in certain cases
08:32:28 <r0kk3rz> its really annoying
08:32:30 <LarstiQ> and most sites overdo it
08:33:39 <Jaymzz_> LarstiQ: So you mean our case is not required to?
08:33:54 <LarstiQ> Jaymzz_: not claiming that, I haven't looked into it
08:34:23 <LarstiQ> just saying it's not a blanket requirement, so if nh1402 can more clearly specify what exactly is in violation that makes it easier to pass on to site devs
08:34:32 <Jaymzz_> Okay we can do that, and if we were required, I don't see anything preventing us from adding a message
08:34:57 <LarstiQ> Jaymzz_: well, time and effort, but if that's needed to comply no choice
08:35:05 <Jaymzz_> exactly
08:35:40 <Jaymzz_> #info Jolla will look into this issue, and if it was a requirement for our case, we will add it to our websites.
08:35:46 <Jaymzz_> nh1402: Is that OK? :)
08:35:54 <nh1402> yes
08:36:03 <Jaymzz_> Alright cool
08:36:17 <Jaymzz_> moving on then
08:36:23 <Jaymzz_> #topic General discussion (15 min)
08:37:24 <Jaymzz_> discuss away :)
08:37:24 <LarstiQ> (http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm for the previous topic)
08:37:54 <remote_> mm... news on cbeta progress?
08:38:51 <kayuz6> and the cbeta is doing the test with 2.1.2 or 2.1.1 image on xperia x?
08:39:14 <Jaymzz_> remote_: It might see a slight delay as we might change some plans, but nothing is concrete so it is on-going as before.
08:39:15 <sledges> 2.1.2
08:39:27 <Jaymzz_> kayuz6: 2.1.2 is being tested by cbeta
08:39:36 <Jaymzz_> on Xperia
08:40:05 <Mister_Magister> Lately i faced the problem that lipstick doesn't have option to rotate by 180* if the screen inside phone is inserted upside down
08:40:32 <sledges> Mister_Magister: it's an intended restriction, tablet can do 360
08:40:47 <sledges> yet android apps rotate the phone 360 if they need so (like google maps)
08:41:07 <Jaymzz_> why would you insert screen upside down? or are you talking about the moto port that was upside down?
08:41:08 <sledges> very useful to adjust in the car phone holder
08:41:34 <Mister_Magister> sledges: i mean in android there is a build,prop param to rotate screen 180* if it's mounted upside down
08:41:45 <r0kk3rz> Jaymzz_: i believe he means the actual device pixel orientation
08:41:50 <nh1402> imo if the user wants to use the phone upside down they should be able to.
08:41:53 <Mister_Magister> but there is nothing like that in lipstick so i'm forced to have my phone upside down
08:41:59 <Jaymzz_> aa ok
08:42:21 <Mister_Magister> Jaymzz_: i'm talking about poty
08:43:05 <sledges> Mister_Magister: you should grep porters logs for framebuffer orientation
08:43:32 <sledges> OrokuSaki had that problem on his tablet years ago
08:43:49 <Mister_Magister> sledges: thanks will do
08:44:51 <pvuorela> Mister_Magister: you want your app to rotate upside down or specifically lipstick?
08:45:05 <kayuz6> and a little rocky question: the android runtime on Jolla phone will always be 4.1?
08:45:05 <kayuz6> thank you for info Jaymzz
08:45:41 <Mister_Magister> pvuorela: i'm porting sfos to phone with upside down screen
08:46:13 <krnlyng> there is a trick to tell hwcomposer to rotate the image by 180 iirc.
08:46:34 <pvuorela> Mister_Magister: oh right. then quite far from user doing this or that.
08:47:05 <Mister_Magister> krnlyng: more info?
08:48:40 <krnlyng> https://github.com/libhybris/libhybris/blob/master/hybris/egl/platforms/hwcomposer/hwcomposer_window.cpp#L411 try returning different rotation here
08:50:00 <Jaymzz_> #link https://github.com/libhybris/libhybris/blob/master/hybris/egl/platforms/hwcomposer/hwcomposer_window.cpp#L411
08:50:06 <Mister_Magister> welp i think we will continue that on #sailfishos-porters channel :)
08:50:43 <Jaymzz_> 3 minutes remains guys :)
08:51:59 <sledges> remote_: cbeta testers are loving xperia's camera ^-^
08:52:20 <kayuz6> there is any chance that Sony, looking at how beatiful sailfish os is on their xperia, will make it as their default os?
08:52:53 <Mister_Magister> Is there any news about sfos for X Compact?
08:52:56 <r0kk3rz> maybe a non-zero chance, but still quite small
08:52:58 <sledges> and so do SFOS Berlin group
08:53:09 <Jaymzz_> kayuz6: We can't really comment on behalf of Sony. And that is a future discussion of course :)
08:53:17 <nh1402> kayuz6: seeing as they're the main contributor to AOSP after Google, I doubt it
08:53:40 <Jaymzz_> Alright time's up guys
08:53:42 <remote_> sledges: nice to hear!
08:53:45 <Jaymzz_> moving on
08:53:54 <Jaymzz_> #topic Next meeting’s time and date (5 min)
08:54:03 <Jaymzz_> Proposal: Wednesday, 23rd of August 2017 at 08:00 UTC
08:54:25 <Jaymzz_> Keeping it bi-weekly :) I guess everyone is fine with it as usual, right?
08:55:04 <Jaymzz_> And I take that as a yes
08:55:13 <r0kk3rz> +1
08:55:14 <chriadam_> no complaints from me
08:55:18 <ced117> i wont be available that date, but not a problem
08:55:19 <Jaymzz_> #info Next meeting will be held on Wednesday, 23rd of August 2017 at 08:00 UTC
08:55:32 <Jaymzz_> ced117: if you had a topic, set someone to cover for you
08:55:43 <ced117> of course Jaymzz_
08:55:55 <Jaymzz_> Thanks everyone for attending today's meeting :)
08:55:59 <chriadam_> thanks!
08:56:04 <ced117> thank you :)
08:56:07 <kayuz6> very good sailors, (I am looing or sailors) :)
08:56:08 <Jaymzz_> Minutes will be sent to your emails for the pleasure of your eyeballs :D
08:56:20 <Jaymzz_> Cheers!
08:56:23 <Jaymzz_> #endmeeting