[IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] Long-term support for Sugar

[Bernie Innocenti]

El Wed, 23-09-2009 a las 12:25 -0400, Benjamin M. Schwartz escribió:
> Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> > The use cases that work now would continue to work with any package
> > format.
> 
> That's definitely not true.
> 
> One option (the one I thought you were advocating) is to make Activities
> just like any other software installed by the distribution package
> manager.  That means they'd be RPM on Fedora and DEB on Debian.  Two Sugar
> 0.84 x86 installs, one on Debian and one on Fedora, can currently push
> Activity bundles back and forth with some probability of success.  If
> Activities in Sugar-0.88 on Debian are packaged as .deb, then clearly
> Fedora will have no idea what to do with them, and so pushing Activities
> over the network would no longer work.

Right.  One way around it is using Alien, which I already proposed.
Another "solution" is to admit that kids running incompatible distros
will be unable to exchange activities -- period.  It would be quite a
rare scenario in the field.

Another possibility would be supporting .xo alongside native packages
and use it for the noarch activities.  But you'd *still* have to find a
way to check for availability of all their dependencies in the correct
versions.

A fixed platform with infinite backwards compatibility is a dream even
for an interpreted language.  Ask the Visual Basic crowd ;-)
No.  Actually, ask the Python crowd too.

Right now, we're just closing our eyes pretending that we are immune
from the dependency problems and that the .xo package format will
suffice.  Do you really believe this?

-- 
   // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/
 \X/  Sugar Labs       - http://sugarlabs.org/