> I've followed every single Apps on SD card thread that's ever been on
> android-platform AND android-discuss. People act like "this issue has
> been hashed out over and over again previously" as a way of dismissing
> any communication on this. The truth is the tip of the iceberg has
> barely been reached each time.

> Now that it is clear that Android 2.0 does not support any kind of
> apps on SD and that Google still neglected to hit the send button on
> the email saying "512MB isn't really enough guys". We need to revisit
> this. We need a complete  list of requirements from OHA that are non
> negotiable (as in, a guarantee that a solution meeting those
> requirements can be merged into AOSP master). We need the Android
> developers responsible for:

> vold
> Package Installation Manager
> All the SD card related settings, setup, etc
> Application security model
> Possibly someone low level on Dalvik to answer questions on memory
> management and process killing in the event of SD card failure
> Launcher (we want to gray out unavailable programs)
> and we probably need an Android Product Manager (if you have such a
> role)

> We need these people to join this discussion and make sure at the very
> least they put in what OHA requirements are non-negotiable, what
> problems they foresee, and optionally ideas on how to go start a final
> design.

> Let's be serious. Just tell us this will or won't happen so we don't
> waste OUR valuable time. Otherwise whatever ends up sounding good here
> after a lot of careful design will just be discarded in one sentence
> by the above individuals at a later date. I would just like an end to
> the hypocrisy. Just say "this isn't going to happen. sorry guys, maybe
> next year" if that's what you mean. Otherwise, the people involved
> should start collaborating, perhaps a wiki design doc and start making
> serious progress on this.

> -E

> On Oct 22, 12:31 pm, Jean-Baptiste Queru <j...@android.com> wrote:
> > All right, here are a few hints of things which I think have been
> > discussed in the past (though I don't remember whether that was in
> > public or not).