[Sugar-devel] [Marketing] [SoaS] The next Step: v2 Roadmap

[Martin Dengler]

On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 10:31:56AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Tomeu Vizoso<tomeu at sugarlabs.org> wrote:
> > If people want to package and maintain those as .rpms, I don't see any
> > problem with that. But if we don't have enough hands for that, the
> > alternative I proposed might be worth it (is actually what SoaS does
> > when creating an image).
> 
> I think its worth packaging the core activities as rpms such as
> read/write/record/speak etc to allow easy testing upstream to make it
> easy for testing regressions like we discussed at Fudcon. For the rest
> of the activities it might be worth looking at something like an
> activity bundle rpm or something similar.

You're right.  So is Tomeu, though.  In order to debate
Activities-as-RPMs vs. Activities-as-XO-bundles one must also take
into account the distribution scenario.  Activities-as-RPMs currently
are worse at adhering to the relevant Sugar HIG sections[1,2] than
Activities-as-XO-bundles (not that the latter are fully in compliance,
either - they're just better).

RPMs should exist as they make sense in some cases - e.g., LTSP where
there is one version of Maze for all OS users.

They don't seem to make as much sense for SoaS / XO deployments
because we want the user to update the activities themselves from the
Sugar GUI, which currently most distros support (implicitly) via XO
bundles.

> > Tomeu
>
> Peter

Martin

1. http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Design_Team/Human_Interface_Guidelines/Activities/Activity_Bundles#Bundle_Types
2. http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Development_Team/Almanac/Activity_Bundles#Location
-------------- 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/20090706/7dcf6abc/attachment.pgp