Framework or app?

[Mark Shuttleworth]

On 21/01/15 12:43, Ake Hedman wrote:
> When you say "hardware" I guess you mean hardware on the specific
> platform. It would have been nice if that also was a criteria for the
> "apps" to so that for instance a driver used by our daemon that depend
> on ceratin hardware features of the platform is only available if the
> chosen platform got that hardware feature.  That way end user does not
> have to bother about details. A typical example of this is CAN. It's
> no meaning to present "apps/drivers" to users that is looking for
> functionality on a module that does not have this hardware. What is
> behind the CAN interface, being a truck, a car, or a number of nodes
> for other purposes as the one we construct is then easily handled and
> abstracted by the installed framework. Same is true for specific RF
> interfaces etc. And for serial ports and things like that they can be
> claimed for a specific purpose and made unavailable for others. No use
> to give an option to install things in that case either. IMHO and end
> user installing apps should not need to bother about things like that.
> Just functionality.

Yes, this is exactly the intent of the hardware layer - to describe the
hardware accurately enough that only appropriate apps and frameworks are
presented for installation.

Mark