[Sugar-devel] Activity packaging problems

David Farning dfarning at sugarlabs.org
Sat Dec 20 14:43:09 EST 2008

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 06:40:42PM +0100, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
>>On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
>>> Please consider republishing latest 0.82.x tarballs at sugarlabs.org,
>>> so that distributors can refer to a single upstream location for both
>>> stable and development sources.
>>Good point, done.
>>> Please do not generate new tarballs from Git, but copy the already
>>> generated tarballs from laptop.org, to not break md5sums
>>> verifications used by some distros.
>>We are leaving the old one on laptop.org for now.
> Ahem, either you misunderstood or somehow misunderstand your response:
> I do not suggest to change anything at laptop.org, but to _duplicate_
> the most recent 0.82.x tarballs currently only officially available
> below http://dev.laptop.org/pub/ to _also_ be available below
> http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/
> 0.82.x packages will be included with next stable release of Debian,
> which means that (most likely) for the next couple of years Debian will
> promote laptop.org as the source of Sugar software rather than
> sugarlabs.org. Which is plain wrong IMO, but really needs above action
> to sanely be possible to attempt fixing now.
> You write that it is done" but looking at e.g.
> http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/sugar-toolkit/
> shows only a single tarball for the 0.83.3 release.
> With my suggestion effectuated I would expect at that same URL to also
> see a tarball for the 0.82.11 release of sugar-toolkit.
> Kind regards,
>  - Jonas

Please keep these points coming.  Last release, Sugar's only active
downstream was OLPC.  This release we will be acting as upstreams,
directly or indirectly, for OLPC, Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, Mandriva,
and a few others.

There are fundamental differences between the work flow and priorities
of upstream developers who are on six month release cycles and
downstream distributors who support production systems for at least
two years.

Sometimes as upstreams we forget to look at things from downstreams
point of view.  So, Jonas and others representing downstreams, keep
them coming and try to keep them constructive.

Hopefully a large part of our focus over the next several months will
be on finding the balance between keeping upstream development moving
forward while supporting downstream distributions.


More information about the Sugar-devel mailing list