Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Aug 22, 2024. It is now read-only.

[xenial] Implement Halium in Ubuntu Touch #89

Closed
UniversalSuperBox opened this issue Jun 8, 2017 · 5 comments
Closed

[xenial] Implement Halium in Ubuntu Touch #89

UniversalSuperBox opened this issue Jun 8, 2017 · 5 comments

Comments

@UniversalSuperBox
Copy link
Member

Halium promises to unify our Android hardware compatibility layer with other GNU/Linux distributions. It provides a port-once, run-anything interface, so one developer's successful Halium port will open a device up to Ubuntu Touch, Plasma Mobile, and any other distributions that choose to use it.

In order to consider a 16.04 image for release, Halium will need to be fully implemented in Ubuntu Touch. This includes:

  • Ensuring that Halium upstream is in a stable state
  • Packaging Halium for Ubuntu
  • Any other Ubuntu-specific implementation details
@UniversalSuperBox UniversalSuperBox added this to the 16.04 PreAlpha milestone Jun 8, 2017
@doniks
Copy link

doniks commented Jul 10, 2017

Fix Released!? For real? Nice (assuming I understood this right :) ). Where's the press release or something? I mean this is big news and it is being promoted, right?

@WLBI
Copy link

WLBI commented Jul 16, 2017

@doniks @NeoTheThird
I also assuming Halium should be released when closing this thread. I wonder too...

@Flohack74
Copy link
Member

Current issues with Halium and our core devices:

As long as these problems are not solved, Halium cannot be considered stable enough for UBports. So, this ticket must be re-opened.

@Flohack74 Flohack74 reopened this Aug 18, 2017
@mariogrip mariogrip removed this from the 16.04 PreAlpha milestone Oct 28, 2017
@Flohack74 Flohack74 changed the title [16.04 blocker] Implement Halium in Ubuntu Touch [16.04] Implement Halium in Ubuntu Touch Jan 23, 2018
@Flohack74 Flohack74 changed the title [16.04] Implement Halium in Ubuntu Touch [xenial] Implement Halium in Ubuntu Touch Jan 23, 2018
@Flohack74
Copy link
Member

Due to the possibility to boot with upstart instead with systemd I don't see this as a blocker anymore. Opinions?

@UniversalSuperBox
Copy link
Member Author

UniversalSuperBox commented Feb 23, 2018

I feel that #404 is possibly a duplicate of this now. Would you agree, @Flohack74?

Another tidbit, I don't think this blocks OTA-4 in any way so it could be moved to a new milestone.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants