16:00:00 <rainemak> #startmeeting Sailfish OS, open source, collaboration -- 26th February 2026
16:00:00 <sailbot> Meeting started Thu Feb 26 16:00:00 2026 UTC. The chair is rainemak. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:00 <sailbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:00 <rainemak> #info Meeting information and agenda can be found here:
16:00:00 <rainemak> #link https://forum.sailfishos.org/t/27745
16:00:00 <rainemak> I am the meeting's chairperson today, and will be doing my best to keep time and order. Please respect the timings and bee-hive.
16:00:00 <rainemak> #topic Brief introduction (5 min). Please prefix your name/handle with #info
16:00:32 <rainemak> #info Raine Mäkeläinen, Jolla
16:00:43 <abr> #info Andrew Branson, Jolla
16:00:56 <ViGe> #info Ville Nummela, community
16:01:04 <rainemak> nice to see you ViGe
16:01:05 <direc85[m]> #info Matti Viljanen, Jolla
16:01:31 <Keto> #info Pami Ketolainen, Jolla
16:01:33 <tuplasuhveli[m]> #info tuplasuhveli, community (doing dishes, so may not be able to participate)
16:02:12 <filip_k> #info Filip, community
16:02:17 <ExTechOp> #info Otto Mäkelä, community
16:03:35 <ViGe> perhaps I should also add that I'm about to light the fireplace so my participation might also be less than 100%...
16:04:25 <rainemak> We have 5 topics today and various kinds of questions. Thank you all for submitting.
16:04:42 <rainemak> ViGe, no worry
16:05:01 <rainemak> #topic Unavailable Harbour applications (10 mins -- nephros)
16:05:02 <rainemak> #info <nephros> The Jolla Store/Harbour suffers some scarcity of apps.
16:05:02 <rainemak> #info <nephros>
16:05:02 <rainemak> #info <nephros> One of the issues is older apps which are not available to
16:05:02 <rainemak> #info <nephros> newer releases because of compatability issues or not having
16:05:02 <rainemak> #info <nephros> an aarch64 build available.
16:05:04 <rainemak> #info <nephros>
16:05:06 <rainemak> #info <nephros> Could Jolla provide a digest of apps in Harbour which:
16:05:08 <rainemak> #info <nephros>
16:05:10 <rainemak> #info <nephros> * do not have an aarch64 version ( or more generally do not
16:05:12 <rainemak> #info <nephros>   support all three official architectures)
16:05:14 <rainemak> #info <nephros>
16:05:16 <rainemak> #info <nephros> * have SFOS Version compatibility detected so they do NOT
16:05:18 <rainemak> #info <nephros>   support SFOS 5+
16:05:20 <rainemak> #info <nephros>
16:05:24 <rainemak> #info <nephros> * if possible, contact information or web link to the author
16:05:26 <rainemak> #info <nephros>   (of course, GPDR-compliant, so no names or email addresses
16:05:28 <rainemak> #info <nephros>   etc), but maybe have a source link, or appear like they
16:05:30 <rainemak> #info <nephros>   would be open source.
16:05:32 <rainemak> #info <nephros>
16:05:34 <rainemak> #info <nephros> Note I’m not asking that this become a feature of Harbour,
16:05:36 <rainemak> #info <nephros> just a one-time (or maybe in the future yearly or so) report.
16:05:38 <rainemak> #info <nephros>
16:05:40 <rainemak> #info <nephros> If Jolla can or will not provide such a report, is there a way
16:05:42 <rainemak> #info <nephros> for someone to generate it themselves, e.g. by analyzing the
16:05:44 <rainemak> #info <nephros> repodata xml files from the store repos?
16:05:46 <rainemak> #info <nephros>
16:05:48 <rainemak> #info <nephros> The goal would be so active community devs could pick up
16:05:50 <rainemak> #info <nephros> development for some of those apps if feasible.
16:05:54 <rainemak> #info <nephros>
16:05:56 <rainemak> #info <nephros> Similar to the efforts that have happened in e.g. Apps that
16:05:58 <rainemak> #info <nephros> haven't been ported to aarch64 and Apps that haven't been
16:06:00 <rainemak> #info <nephros> ported to aarch64 (Store)
16:06:02 <rainemak> #link https://forum.sailfishos.org/t/apps-that-havent-been-ported-to-aarch64/8497
16:06:04 <rainemak> #link https://forum.sailfishos.org/t/apps-that-havent-been-ported-to-aarch64-store/7331
16:06:06 <rainemak> #info <Jolla> Let’s try to ease this problem somehow for us all.
16:06:08 <rainemak> #info <Jolla>
16:06:10 <rainemak> #info <Jolla> * A list of apps not having aarch64 version can be generated
16:06:12 <rainemak> #info <Jolla>
16:06:14 <rainemak> #info <Jolla> * Identifying latest compatible SFOS version is difficult in
16:06:16 <rainemak> #info <Jolla>   some cases, as the rpm dependencies alone don’t always cover
16:06:18 <rainemak> #info <Jolla>   this. But random-pick tests have shown that even apps not
16:06:20 <rainemak> #info <Jolla>   updated in the past decade are often compatible
16:06:24 <rainemak> #info <Jolla>
16:06:26 <rainemak> #info <Jolla> * Providing contact information is not possible due to GDPR.
16:06:28 <rainemak> #info <Jolla>   Some apps do have link to sources or web page is their public #info <Jolla>   metadata
16:06:31 <rainemak> #info <Jolla>
16:06:33 <rainemak> #info <Jolla> Having a list of apps that do not have aarch64 support is
16:06:35 <rainemak> #info <Jolla> already a good starting point.
16:07:55 <rainemak> Regarding the list (first point). We'll create a ticket for ourselves.
16:10:53 <ExTechOp> I assume the relationship between Jolla Store <=> Harbor/Storeman <=> Chum (and the reasons for each application to be available specifically in that place) is spelled out somewhere?
16:11:48 <ViGe> at least in some forum posts
16:12:18 <abr> I guess Jolla Store: tight rules on dependencies and structure. Storeman/openrepos: no restrictions at all. Chum: must build on OBS from public source.
16:12:25 <rainemak> And here: https://forum.sailfishos.org/t/faq-topics-in-the-getting-started-category/26055 but we have a separate topic regarding FAQ
16:13:58 <ExTechOp> "Oops! That page doesn’t exist or is private."
16:14:24 <rainemak> Requires a bit of privileges
16:15:03 <ExTechOp> FAQ that a normal logged-in user can't read isn't that useful :-)
16:15:28 <abr> still drafting by the looks of it
16:15:53 <rainemak> It'll move elsewhere
16:17:09 <abr> yeah it looks good
16:17:15 <ViGe> It has been in the works for over two months, perhaps it's time
16:17:53 <filip_k> yeah. I can still evolve anyway
16:18:05 <filip_k> s/I/it
16:19:26 <rainemak> Let's move on
16:19:27 <rainemak> #topic Process for taking over maintenance of apps in Harbour (5 mins -- asked by nephros)
16:19:27 <rainemak> #info <nephros> As a follow-up to the question above, what is the preferred
16:19:27 <rainemak> #info <nephros> way of taking over an app published in Harbour?
16:19:27 <rainemak> #info <nephros>
16:19:28 <rainemak> #info <nephros> What are prerequisites, and how does one contact Jolla to
16:19:29 <rainemak> #info <nephros> attempt it?
16:19:34 <rainemak> #info <Jolla> The original owner of the app needs to contact Jolla and request
16:19:34 <rainemak> #info <Jolla> ownership transfer. The request can be made in Harbour by
16:19:35 <rainemak> #info <Jolla> submitting app update with a message to QA.
16:20:23 <abr> that sounds like something that should be in that FAQ too
16:20:59 <rainemak> Surely, you could try to reach the original owner and ask for ownership + guide to ask from us.
16:22:08 <rainemak> abr, that's a good point. Do you mind adding?
16:22:27 <abr> I'll try!
16:23:58 <ViGe> It could also be in the Harbour FAQ. Although the probability that anyone finds the information there is quite a lot lower as probably there aren't that many people who know such a thing exists :-D
16:24:06 <Keto> It probably should be in the Harbour FAQ
16:24:50 <rainemak> Let's have linking from from Forum thingie to Harbour FAQ
16:25:05 <ViGe> That's a good idea!
16:25:07 <Keto> and the Harbour FAQ probably should move to docs.sailfishos.org with other app developement related documentation
16:25:15 <rainemak> -> kinda, please find Jolla Store related FAQ here.
16:25:24 <rainemak> Keto, agree
16:25:38 <ViGe> Keto: that's also good idea, it would be much easier to update there
16:25:58 <rainemak> Keto, could you create tickets
16:26:22 <Keto> it's again one thing that has been hanging in the newerending todo list :)
16:26:51 <rainemak> yeap, I know & feel you
16:26:56 <rainemak> alright
16:27:08 <abr> I added the summary of how to do it at least
16:27:21 <rainemak> let's move on
16:27:24 <rainemak> #topic What comes first out of beta: Xperia 10 IV & V or J2 (5 mins -- asked by Filip)
16:27:25 <rainemak> #info <Filip> Many of us bought those Sony phones in good faith on you.
16:27:25 <rainemak> #info <Filip> Unfortunately they are not “daily drivable” for many. Personally
16:27:25 <rainemak> #info <Filip> missing camera is a showstopper for me. Now I wonder if I should
16:27:25 <rainemak> #info <Filip> buy J2 since only a few hundreds (YAY) are available for preorder
16:27:26 <rainemak> #info <Filip> or wait for nonbeta Sony images.
16:27:35 <rainemak> #info <Jolla> Let’s have an open discussion on this one. There ain’t really a
16:27:35 <rainemak> #info <Jolla> question for us, this is more like a comment.
16:28:59 <rainemak> Whilst not Xperia 10 IV and 10 V related, we had good progress with Camera 2 API development during our hackday
16:29:33 <rainemak> s/we had/we made/
16:30:16 <ExTechOp> Is there any hope of a usable Sailfish version of Sony Xperia 10 IV/V, or did that end up going the same way as the Jolla Tablet went?
16:30:32 <filip_k> rainemak: API 2 read like a great news.  can you elaborate why this is not a question please? for me is more then relevant question.
16:30:38 <zhasha> I'm assuming that since Jolla has built a custom board that you have access to whatever documentation is necessary to build and debug the J2 phone, rendering it orders of magnitude easier than hunting down the bugs plaguing the Xperia phones
16:34:03 <rainemak> filip_k, it's a comment. Feel free to discuss what comes first but there ain't too much that we can affect on the other one
16:36:10 <zhasha> it feels and sounds like all the effort is being put into the J2, with Sailfish X mostly just getting whatever happens to also benefit it along the way
16:36:59 <rainemak> zhasha, no it's not like that. if the base port of the Xperia doesn't work -> what shall we do?
16:37:44 <filip_k> but you have a strategy or a plan. you did have it when you announce it. yeah, the luck was not great. but many of us invest in the X10IV or V but now we don't have a clue when it will happen. My C2 unglued in my backpocket and many others are in similiar urge to replace the pold phone.
16:38:57 <zhasha> Well, the nasty option is reverse engineering. I don't think that's the right thing to do for a small company. It's just too easy for me to say that because I didn't buy a 10 IV/V
16:39:59 <abr> i heard the lineage based community ports for xperias were looking good. maybe that's a possible solution
16:40:13 <filip_k> rainemak: > if the base port of the Xperia doesn't work -> what shall we do?   that can happen. we just would like more transparency so we can decide better. we, community support you. by choice.
16:40:18 <zhasha> I don't want to blame you but at the same time it might be nice for the people who did buy a 10 IV/V to have the bandaid ripped off
16:40:47 <rainemak> abr, we said earlier that if there would be a community port we could consider making commercial components available for it
16:41:48 <abr> I don't think there's a bandaid to be ripped off - newer blobs might still come along
16:43:02 <rainemak> filip_k, honestly I cannot really see show much more transparent we could be
16:43:15 <rainemak> filip_k, honestly I cannot really see how much more transparent we could be
16:44:14 <rainemak> and we do love you all... we're making these things together at the same time
16:45:08 <zhasha> Side question: is there an in depth architectural overview of how SFOS is built on top of the Android blobs?
16:45:18 <filip_k> rainemak: ok, let me rephrase.  if understand everything correctly it doesn't look a nonbeta release any time soon (until summer to be more concrete)?
16:46:04 <ExTechOp> Second side question: is the J2 architecture significantly different from the proprietary-blobs model seen on the Sony hardware?
16:46:14 <rainemak> filip_k, we do not have visibility towards it. like abr said, newer blobs might still come along
16:46:50 <filip_k> ok, thx. that partially answer my question.
16:46:55 <abr> Sony might put out a set of working blobs tomorrow. We have no more visibility on that than anyone else.
16:48:08 <filip_k> I understtod a bit wrong I guess. that apart from fingerprint sensor thinhs are patched to the alpa working order
16:48:39 <rainemak> filip_k, I guess this is pretty much covered and we could move on
16:48:52 <filip_k> from my side we can go to the next topic
16:49:27 <rainemak> moving on
16:49:29 <rainemak> #topic Clarification of technical specs of J2 (and maybe even confirmation what should we call it) to one place (5 mins -- asked by CLMA31)
16:49:29 <rainemak> #info <CLMA31> I think most of the phone specs are now official, SoC,
16:49:29 <rainemak> #info <CLMA31> supported bands, camera modules etc. Problem is that those are
16:49:29 <rainemak> #info <CLMA31> a little bit scattered and would be amazing if they were added
16:49:29 <rainemak> #info <CLMA31> to the product page of J2. When trying to give these
16:49:31 <rainemak> #info <CLMA31> information to people online, it can be quite tricky to find
16:49:33 <rainemak> #info <CLMA31> them even myself.
16:49:43 <rainemak> #info <Jolla> We’ll update the product page of Jolla Phone, more specifically
16:49:43 <rainemak> #info <Jolla> tech specs section.
16:49:44 <rainemak> #link https://commerce.jolla.com/products/jolla-phone-preorder#techspecs.
16:50:22 <rainemak> Please use Jolla Phone instead of J2 as it's called Jolla Phone.
16:50:49 <rainemak> :-)
16:51:21 <rainemak> Formal longer format is "Jolla Phone (2026)"
16:51:43 <ExTechOp> "So, you're not called Bruce? That's going to cause some confusion. Mind if we call you Bruce?"
16:51:56 <abr> "Let me introduce you to my current wife"
16:52:13 <abr> "Wife 2 as I like to call her"
16:52:20 <Keto> :D
16:52:29 <rainemak> :D
16:53:11 <rainemak> Very good point still from CLMA31[m]
16:54:14 <CLMA31[m]> Hi, very late to the party!
16:54:24 <rainemak> No worry CLMA31[m]
16:54:38 <CLMA31[m]> It would be great to have official short version of the name to be used in online platforms
16:54:52 <SailMaa[m]> #info SailMaa, community
16:54:54 <SailMaa[m]> Hey, I'm late too :)
16:55:02 <CLMA31[m]> Probably won't write always Jolla Phone (2026)
16:55:13 <rainemak> Jolla Phone :-)
16:55:24 <CLMA31[m]> #info CLMA31, community
16:55:27 <mal> well isn't the old phone usually called jolla 1 so there isn't much confusion?
16:55:27 <CLMA31[m]> JP?
16:55:31 <abr> I guess new Jolla Phone if that's too vague?
16:56:02 <SailMaa[m]> For how long is it going to be the "new" JOlla Phone?
16:56:19 <SailMaa[m]> s/JOlla/Jolla/
16:56:29 <CLMA31[m]> Yea, I think we will continue living with this name scene, we can move on
16:56:30 <abr> until the divorce. then it'll be Wife 2 Pro Max
16:56:35 <rainemak> good point, better to just call it Jolla Phone
16:56:59 <rainemak> #topic “FAQ” topics in the “Getting Started” category (15 mins -- asked by CLMA31)
16:56:59 <rainemak> #info <CLMA31> There has been great community effort to create FAQ section for
16:56:59 <rainemak> #info <CLMA31> Getting started category. @attah raised the following comment:
16:56:59 <rainemak> #info <CLMA31> ”So how do we proceed? Would Jolla be ok to promote this to
16:56:59 <rainemak> #info <CLMA31> official status for the forum? Shameless ping @rainemak.
16:57:00 <rainemak> #info <CLMA31>
16:57:02 <rainemak> #info <CLMA31> The FAQ is looking quite nice at this point. Could do with a
16:57:04 <rainemak> #info <CLMA31> once-over for grammar and tone perhaps - along with addressing
16:57:06 <rainemak> #info <CLMA31> any objections or requests from Jolla.”
16:57:06 <mal> it's not like there much talk about old phone anyway
16:57:08 <rainemak> #info <CLMA31>
16:57:10 <rainemak> #info <CLMA31> I think it would be great to hear Jolla’s feeling about this
16:57:12 <rainemak> #info <CLMA31> kind of community development and if there is some kind of
16:57:14 <rainemak> #info <CLMA31> objections or request from Jolla’s side. Or other things to
16:57:16 <rainemak> #info <CLMA31> note. Personally I think it is great way to help newcomers.
16:57:18 <rainemak> #link https://forum.sailfishos.org/t/faq-topics-in-the-getting-started-category/26055
16:57:45 <rainemak> #info <Jolla> Indeed, the FAQ starts looking really nice. There are some
16:57:45 <rainemak> #info <Jolla> things that we should discuss in more in the topic. At the end
16:57:45 <rainemak> #info <Jolla> of the day, we should incorporate this an appropriate place.
16:57:45 <rainemak> #info <Jolla>
16:57:45 <rainemak> #info <Jolla> Keeping this as wikified topic is in any case a good target.
16:58:46 <rainemak> and sorry, that forum link is only semi open
16:59:58 <SailMaa[m]> Just a comment: The forum has the agility of a wiki, but things get buried far away after a while. The docs on sailfishos.org are easier to find, but lack the agility of a wiki.
17:00:15 <SailMaa[m]> Agility=that "anyone" can edit with low effort
17:00:51 <rainemak> have you tested wysiwyg editor of docs? It's actually not that bad
17:01:07 <SailMaa[m]> So, I'm not really in favour of a forum post as substitute for documentation
17:01:29 <rainemak> SailMaa[m], they are not substitute
17:01:39 <SailMaa[m]> rainemak: Hadn't noticed that there was any editing at all. Let me check
17:01:57 <rainemak> path is that forum more persistent information should flow towards the docs
17:02:01 <rainemak> "Edit this page on GitHub"
17:02:14 <rainemak> each page has that link at the end of the page
17:02:35 <SailMaa[m]> rainemak: Agree!
17:03:15 <SailMaa[m]> rainemak: Ah, ok. That's not exactly what I mean by the agility of a wiki. I'm more referring to Wikipedia or similar
17:03:28 <rainemak> i see
17:03:45 <mal> wiki always has the issue of moderation
17:03:52 <SailMaa[m]> Some kind of permissions model would be needed, but maybe not make a Github account a reqiorement for contributions to docs?
17:04:30 <SailMaa[m]> s/reqiorement/requirement/
17:07:24 <rainemak> Back to the topics. Extremely good job with FAQ. Let's iron out some Q&A pair and figure out a way forward.
17:07:33 <rainemak> pairs
17:10:23 <rainemak> moving
17:10:28 <rainemak> #topic Open Pull Requests (PRs) to discussion (5 mins -- asked by Jolla)
17:15:15 <rainemak> alright, let's move on
17:15:23 <rainemak> #topic General discussion (10 mins)
17:15:31 <ExTechOp> One side question: the calendar URL https://docs.sailfishos.org/Support/community.ics presents a calendar that when added to Google calendar shows correct times, and then when exported
17:15:31 <ExTechOp> to my SFOS phone is one hour off, indicating that this meeting is on Thursdays 19/20 EET (Finnish winter time). Or have I goofed somehow doing this, there weren't a lot of options to select?
17:18:27 <rainemak> good question ExTechOp, could you abr maybe check?
17:18:41 <mal> rainemak: what is the exact time of this meeting really, is it always at same time in finnish time?
17:18:49 <rainemak> mal, yes
17:18:52 <mal> in summer and winter
17:18:55 <rainemak> no
17:19:02 <rainemak> :)
17:19:04 <mal> ?
17:19:32 <rainemak> we adjusted to 6:00 PM HKI upon winter time change
17:19:52 <rainemak> #info Meetup in Barcelona next week Wednesday
17:19:52 <rainemak> #link https://forum.sailfishos.org/t/27957
17:19:55 <mal> the ics file sets the time as utc so it then changes based and winter time
17:20:33 <ExTechOp> (I'm not explicitly importing this calendar to the phone, just adding it to Google's calendar and that will make it turn up on the phone as a part of it)
17:20:40 <mal> ok
17:21:22 <ExTechOp> The question is, where does the time zone go wonky? It should be a fairly quick test for you if you also have a Google calendar already on the phone.
17:21:58 <Keto> at least adding the ics directly on phone seems to show correct time
17:22:05 <mal> ok, need to check who at jolla has such google calendar to check it
17:22:10 <direc85[m]> I'm getting 19 from the .ics file as well, but it has DSTART:20250619T160000Z so it should be correct, right..?
17:22:28 <abr> google do calendars?
17:22:42 <SailMaa[m]> Keto: For me too
17:23:10 <ExTechOp> abr https://calendar.google.com/ if you already have a Google account
17:23:46 <abr> ooh no i don't think I want them having my calendars :)
17:24:10 <mal> well jsut for making some test it should be fine
17:25:44 <rainemak> ExTechOp, we could write a ticket of this ics file issue as well
17:26:07 <rainemak> let's schedule the next meeting
17:26:20 <rainemak> #topic Next meeting time and date (2 mins)
17:26:26 <rainemak> 'Proposing Thursday 26th February at 04:00 PM UTC
17:26:34 <ExTechOp> I can contribute to the ticket with details, if you give me pointers.
17:26:53 <ExTechOp> That's today?
17:26:57 <Keto> rainemak: eh... :)
17:27:23 <rainemak> Proposing Thursday 12th March at 04:00 PM UTC
17:27:30 <rainemak> too many windows open
17:27:33 <ExTechOp> Excellent, works4me.
17:28:20 <direc85[m]> +1
17:28:44 <direc85[m]> re: ics: Thunderbird imports it correctly as well.
17:28:45 <ExTechOp> rainemak "and what tab is that music coming from?"
17:29:06 <mal> so it's not an issue with ics but google calendar
17:29:14 <rainemak> #info Next meeting will be held on Thursday 12th March 2026 at 04:00pm UTC: 2026-03-12T1600Z
17:29:22 <rainemak> ExTechOp, issue can be opened here https://github.com/sailfishos/issue-tracker/issues
17:29:40 <rainemak> ExTechOp, :)
17:30:17 <rainemak> thank you all! I really enjoy these multi topic meetings
17:30:31 <ExTechOp> Thank you, everybody!
17:30:33 <rainemak> #endmeeting