[Sugar-devel] Sugar Platform clarifications
dr at jones.dk
Tue Dec 1 09:13:45 EST 2009
On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 02:48:18PM +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>On 01.12.2009, at 13:33, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 11:27:27AM +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>>> On 01.12.2009, at 02:43, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 02:15:46AM +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>>>>> On 29.11.2009, at 15:02, Sascha Silbe wrote:
>>>>> Speaking of Etoys - that 0.86 page lists 4.0.2206, whereas the
>>>>> actual Etoys version in the 0.86 release was 4.0.2319 (and
>>>>> 4.0.2332 in 0.86.2). How come? Should I just change it, and if so,
>>>>> to which version? Also, there have been some bug fixes since then,
>>>>> the current version (good for 0.82 to 0.86) is 4.0.2339.
>>>> I believe that page should have the minimal version working with
>>>> It is a wiki: feel free to update if the information is wrong :-)
>>> I changed it to 4.0.2332.
>> Which means you consider older versions to *not* work with Sugar?
>No, but the page says that these are the versions that "activity
>authors can rely on" when targeting Sugar 0.86. Actually, 4.0.2339 has
>an important fix for etoys-based activities (SugarLabs #1576), but
>since this was not ready in time for 0.86, activity authors can not
>rely on it.
Python 2.6 was also "ready" when 0.86 was released, but promising
activity authors as a minimum that version raise the bar for
I strongly recommend to promote a more relaxed "lowest denominator".
* 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
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20091201/82f2dfb3/attachment.pgp
More information about the Sugar-devel