[Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] Long-term support for Sugar

[Martin Dengler]

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:02:55PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> >   > If it were on me, I'd just ditch the XO bundle format and use
> >> >   > native packages for each distro.  Some are already being
> >> >   > packaged, and the Python distutils are capable of producing rpms
> >> >   > and debs with the same ease of our current setup.py scripts.
> >> >
> >> > But then every child in Uruguay (plus other deployments that withhold
> >> > root from their users) would hate you 'cause they wouldn't be able to
> >> > install activities anymore.  A solution that results in a significant
> >> > percentage of Sugar's users not being able to download activities
> >> > anymore is not a solution.
> >> >
> >> > If we could switch to .rpm *and* find a good way to install .rpms
> >> > without being root, though, that would be pretty compelling.
> >>
> >> Its called PackageKit :-) See discussions from previously...
> >
> > Which discussion pointed out how PackageKit could install different
> > rpms for different users?
> 
> Do you mean different versions of Write for different users? Or one
> person on a machine have access to Write and another person not to
> have access to it?

Well I meant precisely what I said (sorry to be pedantic). If one
replaces "rpms" with "XO bundles", it's what we have now, and what I
think's being proposed to be replaced with rpm/PackageKit.  "Different
versions of Write for different users" seems to be an example, yeah.

> Peter

Martin
-------------- 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/20090921/e8d1fa62/attachment.pgp