[Sugar-devel] Bundles with binary requirements (Was: The ARM is near)

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 09:55:37PM +0200, Elena of Valhalla wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Jonas Smedegaard<dr at jones.dk> wrote:
>> What would "universal" be in the Sugar context?
>> i386 + amd64?
>> i686 + amd64?
>> i386 + i686 + amd64?
>
>i386 would work on all of them, even if not optimally, but then

True only if the underlying system is i386 too, of if it at least 
provides i386 libraries for all of the bindings.


>> powerpc + i386 + amd64?
>> armel + i386 + amd64?
>> powerpc + armel + i386 + amd64?
>
>+mips, I guess

...and then when all users have gotten used to Sugar "universal" meaning 
that bunch, in comes SuperH hardware and we confuse them yet again.


Compare with Apple: "Universal" means simply "contains both new and 
old", with the exact meaning of "new" and "old" shifting tied to a 
corporate decision and backed by massive marketing.


>> It is plain ugly IMHO!
>
>and wasteful

and still only addresses arch-differences - not same-arch 
incompatibilities between different minor versions of libraries and 
different dependencies linked in (e.g. some distributions using libssl 
and others using gnutls).

Just avoid that mess!

It seems difficult to constrain activity developers to only code using 
arch-independent runtime code, but accepting arch-dependent stuff is an 
evergrowing hell - it is what "distributions" spend humongous man-hours 
handling!


  - Jonas

-- 
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20090828/0afd2935/attachment.pgp