[Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] Oversight Board request: Not fully bundled .xo

Aleksey Lim alsroot at member.fsf.org
Thu Mar 4 17:34:18 EST 2010

On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 05:01:54PM -0500, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote:
> Aleksey Lim wrote:
> > * the major issue here that ASLO is not particalr deployment oriented
> >   portal, e.g. in OLPC case, mentioned issue is mostly means nothing
> >   since OLPC can effectively add/remove any component they think is
> >   useful for their users
> I don't understand this claim.  ASLO is seeing literally millions of
> downloads from OLPC deployments.  Probably 99% of ASLO traffic is from
> OLPC's users.

Thats another thing I'm willing to make decision about basing on SLOBs
answer (since I accepted some of ASLO activities to public), what ASLO is,
in my mind it was deployment agnostic thus if we have packages for 0.84 on
bunch of distros, ASLO activities that are stated 0.84 ready should just
run. But if ASLO is OLPC deployment tool, situation turns to be much
simple - we need to support only f11 on x86.

> As for the rest... I think .xo bundles should be absolutely free of binary
> executables, or anything else that depends on more than the Sugar
> Platform.  We should then introduce a different (better!) bundle format
> that supports such dependencies, based on 0bundle, 0install, etc.  As a
> temporary codename, call it ".x0".

well, and it was the main purpose of SLOBs request, to know how sugar
should move forward. And once more it is not my idle curiosity, in my
mind ASLO turns to be a garbage heap of blobs when there is no chance to
know will particular blob run in particular environment or not i.e. we
are trying to do what no one is doing - provide fully bundled binaries
for bunch of distros (but I know such examples, proprietary blobs),
example w/ MAcOS doesn't work here since it is only one software platform.


More information about the Sugar-devel mailing list