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

Benjamin M. Schwartz bmschwar at fas.harvard.edu
Thu Mar 4 17:47:17 EST 2010

Aleksey Lim wrote:
> 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.

I agree.  OLPC needs this as badly as anyone.

OLPC already supports users on a mix of Fedora 9- and Fedora 11-based
systems.  For all I know there might still be a few running Fedora 7 and
Sugar <0.82.  The situation is only likely to get more mixed in the
future, and OLPC appears to be moving seriously toward ARM-based laptops,
so even individual OLPC schools will be running a mixture of different CPU

>> 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 don't think SLOB can help much here.  I think we are already approaching
consensus.  Part of that consensus is: we can't afford to "just drop" all
the "incomplete .xo's" that require external dependencies or include
non-portable executables.  Before we can clean up the current mess, we
need a solid, supported solution for those Activities.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20100304/97144abc/attachment.pgp 

More information about the Sugar-devel mailing list