[Sugar-devel] A small request.

[Tomeu Vizoso]

On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 10:46, Bernie Innocenti <bernie at sugarlabs.org> wrote:
> C. Scott Ananian wrote:
>> OK, thanks.  The existing updater works fine in Debian; I don't know
>> if it was ever pushed into koji, but it is certainly compatible with
>> Fedora.  If anyone wants to develop a new updater, I can probably
>> offer some advice.  Using an explicit update_url field in the activity
>> is recommended for activities packaged with the current updater; the
>> OLPC wiki default was only ever intended to be a bridge for legacy
>> apps, not a recommended practice.  I prefer email for initial
>> discussions of updater ideas: 9am isn't a great meeting time for me.
>
> How did the Debian package cope with the dependency on olpc-update?
> I thought we had to break that and integrate the relevant support
> files in the control panel module.
>
> Another issue is how we integrate the updater with addons.sl.o.
> Because the OLPC microformat is trivial, it might be easy to modify
> the remora's html output to be compatible with it.  Mick, Tomeu and
> David, who have had a closer look at the code, might want to comment.

If what you propose is to change the php pages to add/change class
attributes of existing html elements, then I think it's going to
increase significantly the rebasing efforts. What about adding new
pages for that purpose?

> With a web UI similar to addons.mozilla.org, the local UI for browsing
> new activities becomes redundant and could be culled, reducing the
> control panel module to a mere updater.  I guess this is for the UI
> designers to decide.

Well, but not all deployments will have access to a Remora instance, or yes?

> See also:
>  http://sugarlabs.org/go/ActivityTeam/Remora_port
>  http://sugarlabs.org/go/DevelopmentTeam/a.s.o
>  http://people.sugarlabs.org/dfarning/aslo_patches/
>
>
>> http://cananian.livejournal.com/48460.html also has some thoughts
>> on updaters.
>
> Regarding the integration with PackageKit, long-term that would be the
> best course, but since it would take a big rewrite I doubt it can
> happen within the 0.84 time frame.
>
> Unless someone else steps up, I volunteer to do the minimum necessary
> integration work to make the current updater work in SoaS with
> addons.sl.o as a backend.

How is that work going?

Regards,

Tomeu