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

[Aleksey Lim]

On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 06:09:43PM -0500, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote:
> 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.

sounds like the way to go, otherwise we will get bunch of public binary blobs
that stated 0.82 only and can start only in XO-1 environment.

SLOBs: well, I didn't have FOSS participant experience before sugar and maybe
I misuse regular workflows, but I guess ASLO is one of SL's base things and
since SLOBs represent SL, would be useful to have similar in form (but it
could have opposite in meaning) statement.

> 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.
> """

and the rest of course is not a task for SLOBs (and there wasn't such
intention).

> 
> What do other people think?
> 
> --Ben
> 



-- 
Aleksey