[Sugar-devel] MANIFEST pointlessness

[Tomeu Vizoso]

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 16:04, Bernie Innocenti <bernie at codewiz.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 15:13 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>
>> Would be good to have some way of tracking what needs to be solved
>> before we can do the switch. Two questions off the top of my head are
>> how first-time activity authors are going to package their software
>
> Now they do:
>
>  ./setup.py fix_manifest
>  ./setup.py dist_xo
>
> When we remove the manifest thing, they could do:
>
>  ./setup.py dist_xo
>
>
> None of the activities I have seen so far store a manually generated
> MANIFEST in git. In case they'd need to exclude some files, hopefully
> setup.py would provide extensibility hooks.
>
> Actually, I've never seen a setup.py containing anything else than the
> two lines of copy-pasted code (plus the usual dozen lines of legal
> crap). Activities which need to build binaries, such as Physics, require
> a manual build step.
>
> This confirms my theory that the xo bundle format is so easy to use just
> because it doesn't do any of the things that a packaging system needs to
> do. Currently, setup.py is just a glorified "zip -r".
>
>
>> and also what those people will have to do to modify an activity
>> installed in their system. (But maybe not discuss these in this
>> thread?).
>
> Currently, upgrading an activity causes the new files to be merged with
> the old ones. This is clearly a bug that should be fixed.
>
> The MANIFEST doesn't play any role in activity installation. The version
> of Sugar shipped in F11-0.88 contains a patch that removes all this code
> and it is functionally identical from the user's point of view, apart
> from not logging warnings when the MANIFEST contains inconsistencies.

Sorry about the confusion, these questions were about the move from xo
bundles to packages :(

Regards,

Tomeu

> --
>   // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/
>  \X/  Sugar Labs       - http://sugarlabs.org/
>
>