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

Benjamin M. Schwartz bmschwar at fas.harvard.edu
Thu Mar 4 18:09:43 EST 2010

Aleksey Lim wrote:
> agree as well, my thought about requesting SLOBs is that there is a fork:
>     * only SP activities
>     * activities w/ non SP dependencies
> and would be very useful (for everyone) if we explicitly follow one
> particular thread.

I agree.  Personally, I would be comfortable with a policy like:
In order for a .xo bundle to be marked Public on ASLO, it must depend only
on the Sugar Platform.  It must not require the installation of any
additional software, or depend on a particular Linux distribution or CPU
architecture.  Activities that have already been marked Public will remain
so marked to avoid disruption.  Activity authors are welcome to upload new
Activities with other dependencies, but they will be marked Experimental.
 Activity authors are discouraged from adding new dependencies to
Activities that have already been marked Public.

We intend to produce a well-supported system for distributing Activities
that depend on software outside the Sugar Platform.  Once this system is
in place, Activities that use it may be marked Public on ASLO.

What do other people think?


-------------- 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/20100304/14b3e2f4/attachment.pgp 

More information about the Sugar-devel mailing list