<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Jonas Smedegaard <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dr@jones.dk">dr@jones.dk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Debian POV: Someone needs to volunteer packaging "sugar-etoys-activity".<br>
Drop an email to <a href="mailto:debian-olpc-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org">debian-olpc-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org</a> .<br>
<br>
Ubuntu POV: Someone needs to volunteer hacking[1] together a sugar<br>
activity package until a Debian package can be adopted. More info at<br>
<a href="https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SugarTeam" target="_blank">https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SugarTeam</a><br>
<br>
I recommend helping as "upstream" as possible instead of only locally<br>
for Ubuntu. YMMV.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Yes, but our "hacks" are the result of a lack of understanding of your git-based packaging; we found it much simpler to use a workflow like svn-buildpackage with get-orig-source where we don't have to deal with multiple branches, etc. All the benifits of using git are moot since you use a patch system, which I think is a better workflow.<br>
<br>It's interesting that Ubuntu had *working* sugar packages with *more* working activities six months ago. This is no longer the case, as we've synced to Debian packaging (which had some show-stopper bugs that required us to patch *each* activity you/we were shipping).<br>
</div><div> <br>If you'd support a sugar-whatever-activity package that didn't use git-buildpackage or the multi-branch/tree workflow, I'd be happy to produce one, but as it stands the build and import process is undocumented. The lack of proper documentaiton has caused Morgan and I considerable frustration, adn was the reason that we decided to fork into non-git packaging for our temporary Ubuntu "hacks". (ie "making it work in a month so other people can actually use it")<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
[1] I do not mean to say that Ubuntu packaging in principle is any worse<br>
quality than packages adopted from Debian. Just that Ubuntu generally<br>
seems to generally favor passing on the grunt work to Debian and treat<br>
locally packaged stuff as temporary, i.e. hacks.<br></blockquote></div><br>-- <br>Luke Faraone<br><a href="http://luke.faraone.cc">http://luke.faraone.cc</a><br>