[Sugar-devel] About the need for .xo bundles (again) (was Re: safer customization key (was Re: will the one true browse please stand up?))

[Martin Dengler]

On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 10:10:59PM +0545, Daniel Drake wrote:
> 2009/8/1 Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu at sugarlabs.org>:
> > They haven't solved the problems we want to solve and are probably not
> > even interested in trying. I'm a bit suprised you are not aware of
> > this, there was a whole session dedicated to this in the last FUDCon
> > in boston. Anyone has a link to the minutes?
> 
> Which problems are those?

From 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RPM_vs_XO_FUDConF11_BarCamp_session_20090110
, perhaps:

XO design goals not currently satisfied by RPM

 1. Installing by "getting from a friend"
 2. Kids can change and redistribute bundles.
     1. Kid bundles are "first class" (distributed versioning implies
        distributed dependencies)
 3. Don't break the world at install time
 4. Localizability in the absence of a cantralized repo
 5. Novice programmers using [Pippy]

Questions

 1. Should activities be noarch?

Wrap-up

  • Short-term -- XO format not going away because of requirements not in RPM or
    any other package format.
  • Other problems underneath -- development standards for activity developers.
    (What is testing, what is release.)
  • This is the release, pull it from git, and build an installable package ==
    something that helps XO and RPM potentially.


> > [Tomeu] 
> Daniel

Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20090804/a0ddf5c5/attachment.pgp