[Sugar-devel] Activity packaging

C. Scott Ananian cscott at laptop.org
Wed Jul 7 17:00:15 EDT 2010

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Aleksey Lim <alsroot at member.fsf.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 01:18:04AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
>> Bernie wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 12:02 -0400, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote:
>> >> I think you are missing an important requirement: installation without
>> >> elevated permissions.
>> >
>> > Rainbow has been bit-rotting for the past 2 years
>> Ahem. Sugar's integration with rainbow has bit-rotted, been rebuilt, and still
>> received no independent testing despite repeated calls for same.
>> Rainbow, on the other hand, has seen a major new release, feature development
>> that spurred new work in general Linux sandboxing, and is now available in more
>> distributions than ever before thanks to dedicated support by folks like Luke,
>> Sascha, and Jonas.
>> Finally, if rainbow itself now receives little day-to-day attention, this is
>> because it mostly does what its authors require and it does it well enough not
>> to require their continued hand-holding.
> To be honest I wasn't a fan of rainbow a bit time ago..
> But having Zero Sugar fully implemented and potential possibility to launch
> almost any piece of software  - compile on demand is a regular workflow within
> 0install (existed sugar doesn't not let such possibility:), rainbow should
> be more then essential requirement.

I took some time to read up on 0install -- very impressive technology,
good work.   I agree with Michael that this (userland installs) is the
direction Sugar should be pursuing.  With rainbow (or other sandbox)
integration, this would accomplish all of the original goals with a
much more robust packaging and dependency system than the .xo bundle.

                         ( http://cscott.net/ )

More information about the Sugar-devel mailing list