[SoaS] [Sugar-devel] Policy for activities for downstream inclusion
simon at schampijer.de
Wed Sep 15 06:01:57 EDT 2010
On 09/15/2010 01:58 AM, Gary Martin wrote:
> On 14 Sep 2010, at 15:14, Simon Schampijer<simon at schampijer.de> wrote:
>> Thanks David and Walter for the feedback,
>> On 09/14/2010 04:09 PM, Walter Bender wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:05 AM, David Farning<dfarning at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Simon Schampijer<simon at schampijer.de> wrote:
>>>>> what is the current status for activity releases in order to include
>>>>> them in distributions like Soas*? Do you guys need tarballs or did you
>>>>> switch over to construct the rpms from the .xo? For example the latest
>>>>> Paint rpm uses the .xo AFAIK (build even the binaries from the
>>>>> non-python sources in the bundle).
>>>>> And is the email from ASLO enough for packagers to know about new
>>>>> releases? Any other notification that packagers need?
>>>> In the .deb side of the universe, we prefer tarballs but we can work
>>>> directly from the git repository.
>> We should not go from the git repository. Either use the .xo or a tarball.
>>> Is it not still the practice to put tarballs on download.sl.o ???
>> Well, the latest mails I have seen about activity releases (besides
>> Chat) does come from ASLO and only state the .xo. If there are tarballs
>> at d.sl.o they have not been announced ;D
> I've been uploading me since Bernie kindly un blocked my shell account, though I totally understand why others might not manage this workflow, there's already many hoops to jump though for a casual activity developer to do for a release.
> Are all the ASLO emails not enough? I'm getting three separate emails from the system for every release already!
for me having one email from ASLO is fine. But the tarball if it exist
should be referenced in the mail.
More information about the SoaS