[IAEP] [Sugar-devel] addons.sugarlabs.org is starting to work

[Simon Schampijer]

Luke Faraone wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Carol Farlow Lerche <cafl at msbit.com> wrote:
> 
>> Why not provide a dependency declaration in the activity file which can be
>> checked when the activity is installed?  It could inform the user that a
>> particular package or library was needed.  I understand that different
>> distros may package the dependencies differently, but it wouldn't be so bad
>> if the user had to identify this at registration (if not an XO running a
>> recognizeable distribution) or when using the activity.s.o site.  Then the
>> checker could recognize which dependency declaration to use (or could
>> announce "this activity has dependencies but your distribution hasn't been
>> described" -- or words to that effect.
>>
> 
> Because at this point, you might as well use a standard and well supported
> format for packaging: either LSB packages (RPMs), or Debian packages.
> (which, as I pointed out, both work on almost *every* distribution)
> As I recall, the only argument raised against using one of those formats was
> the administrative rights required to use them. Since dependancy
> installation is not something most children can do, administrative rights
> are needed, it seems, no matter what for some hardware installations.

Discussions we had at FUDCon about this:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Sugar_on_Fedora:_RPMs_or_.xos%3F

Best,
    Simon