dtourolle/DarkRoom
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 39 Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases 20 Wiki Activity

Stop calling NFR-COMPAT-2 unstated in the paragraph after citing what states it

Browse Source 
outstanding.md §5 said NFR-COMPAT-2's v1 distribution channels were "Unstated"
immediately after the FR-PLAT-LIN-3 paragraph above it cites
docs/distribution.md — a document whose own header says it satisfies
NFR-COMPAT-2 and whose §1 is a table of five channels with the state of each.

The requirement asks that the channels be stated. They are: Arch source package
and Flatpak in tree, AppImage a v1 channel with no recipe yet, F-Droid a v1
channel not yet submitted, and Play deliberately not v1. The deferral is part
of the statement, not a gap in it.

What is genuinely open is the coupling the requirement exists to flag — whether
Play makes ARCH §6.9 binding — which distribution.md §6 argues runs the other
way for this project, and which spike S11 has not been run to confirm. That,
plus two channels that are decisions rather than recipes, is what the entry now
says.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
dtourolle
2026-08-30 10:23:30 +02:00
co-authored by Claude Opus 5
parent 8865743db6
commit f1b0634bd1
1 changed files with 12 additions and 4 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
docs/outstanding.md
+12 -4
View File
@@ -225,10 +225,18 @@ the host is invisible to a sandboxed process as well. The fix is an `ashpd` dire
`LocalStorage::grant`, not a change to the manifest. No Flatpak has been built here — `LocalStorage::grant`, not a change to the manifest. No Flatpak has been built here —
`flatpak-builder` is not installed — so the permission set is reasoned, not observed. `flatpak-builder` is not installed — so the permission set is reasoned, not observed.
**NFR-COMPAT-2 — distribution channels.** Unstated, and this is the requirement that makes the **NFR-COMPAT-2 — distribution channels. Stated, which is all this requirement asks.** The paragraph
others binding: §4.8 observes that the decision to publish on Play is what turns SAF from a above cites [distribution.md](distribution.md) and it is the same document that answers this: §1
preference into a constraint. Spike S11, the Play permissions dry-run that would settle it, has not names five channels and their state — Arch source package and Flatpak in tree, AppImage a v1 channel
run. Related, NFR-COMPAT-1's baseline is real but scattered — API 28/36 live in the Android whose recipe is not written, F-Droid a v1 channel not yet submitted, and Play explicitly **not** v1.
The requirement is to *state* the channels, and they are stated, including the deferral.
What remains is the coupling the requirement points at rather than the statement it demands. §4.8
observes that publishing on Play is what turns SAF from a preference into a constraint, and
distribution.md §6 argues the coupling runs the other way for this project — F-Droid asks nothing
that ARCH §6.9 does not already require. Spike S11, the Play permissions dry-run, has not run, and
until it does that argument is reasoned rather than confirmed. Two of the five channels also exist
as decisions rather than as recipes, and no Flatpak has been built here at all. Related, NFR-COMPAT-1's baseline is real but scattered — API 28/36 live in the Android
Dockerfile and are checked in CI against the built ELF, which is good — while the items the Dockerfile and are checked in CI against the built ELF, which is good — while the items the
requirement singles out are missing: whether `shaderFloat16` and 16-bit storage are required (the requirement singles out are missing: whether `shaderFloat16` and 16-bit storage are required (the
one it flags as jeopardising R1), minimum RAM, minimum desktop Mesa, and a named reference device one it flags as jeopardising R1), minimum RAM, minimum desktop Mesa, and a named reference device