[Sugar-devel] [Feature] activity.info enhancements
dr at jones.dk
Fri Dec 11 23:10:34 EST 2009
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 09:39:15PM -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:43:56PM -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
>>> Summary: It would facilitate the packaging of Sugar activities into
>>> RPMs and DEBs if there were additional information available in the
>>> activity.info file.
>> I would use such hints only as inspiration for Debian packaging, not
>> rely on it.
>>> None of these additional fields need be required, but their
>>> inclusion would make things easier. (This is not a new idea, but one
>>> that seems timely given all the upstream interest in Sugar these
>> I guess you meant _downstream_ interest above. Distributors are
>> downstream to Sugarlabs, only GTK+, Python and similar are upstream,
>> and I suspect that's not the ones gaining interest in Sugar.
>I based my proposal on a discussion with only a small sample of
>packagers. I take it from both Jonas and Aleksey that there may be
>better ways of assisting packagers. The goal is that activity
>developers do have a lot of knowledge about their creations and it
>would make sense to have them express it in some way that would save
>work for others. But what form this expression takes I leave to those
I certainly agree that sharing such info makes good sense - it only
worried me if using a machine-readable format as that could create an
expectation among activity developers of it being used automatically by
distributors which I wouldn't do myself and recommend against others
>Jonas, it may make sense not to depend on things like dependency names,
>etc. but I can imagine things like a summary, description, URL of the
>homepage, etc. could be reasonable to accept from developers.
It makes good sense for upstream to clearly express such metadata, but I
still see it as distribution choice if using it verbatim or not.
As an example, the distributor may have a different interpretation of
"Homepage" than upstream (as has been discussed before on this list).
If you really want to use a machine-readable format then I recommend
using DOAP instead of reinventing the wheel. But even if you do, I
still recommend to use an INSTALL file as well.
Hope that makes sense. If not please keep arguing! :-)
* 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/20091212/18453e21/attachment.pgp
More information about the Sugar-devel