[Sugar-devel] Sugar Platform clarifications (was: Re: [Debian-olpc-devel] Missing deps for sucrose-0.86.)

Aleksey Lim alsroot at member.fsf.org
Mon Nov 30 10:10:29 EST 2009

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 05:50:59PM +0000, Aleksey Lim wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 05:37:44PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 03:02:15PM +0100, Sascha Silbe wrote:
> > >Once 0install support gets merged, Sugar Platform should be enhanced to 
> > >include build tools (autocrap, c(++) compiler, ...); in that case, 
> > >activity authors can also rely on the corresponding -dev(el) packages 
> > >(i.e. libraries, header files, etc.) to be installed as well.
> > 
> > I have not followed the discussions on 0install, but it surprises me 
> > that this should be mandatory - I always considered 0install as 
> > comparable to a distribution.
> afaik there is no plans to "switch" to 0install, in my mind its an
> edition[1] to existed scheme(but if we accept this feature we should
> have 0install injector library in SP), so using 0install dependencies
> we won't extend Sugar Platform too much
> [1] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Zero_Install_integration#Summary

btw 0install could install native packages as well, the reason to
use 0install(instead of another distro agnostic method to install distro
packages) is that w/ 0install we can install packages that are not well
packaged and activity specific binaries.

[2] http://0install.net/tests/Gimp-native.xml

> > I might loose interest in Sugar if 0install becomes integral part of 
> > core Sugar.  But that's another discussion.


More information about the Sugar-devel mailing list