[Sugar-devel] [SoaS] Policy for activities for downstream inclusion

pbrobinson at gmail.com pbrobinson at gmail.com
Tue Sep 14 17:19:58 EDT 2010

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Simon Schampijer <simon at schampijer.de> wrote:
> Hi,
> what is the current status for activity releases in order to include
> them in distributions like Soas*? Do you guys need tarballs or did you
> switch over to construct the rpms from the .xo? For example the latest
> Paint rpm uses the .xo AFAIK (build even the binaries from the
> non-python sources in the bundle).

In some cases we've used .xo files but its not ideal and its caused us
packaging issues in Fedora as in a lot of cases the .xo files include
binary blobs which is against Fedora packaging policies so we have to
jump through extra hoops and its generally a pain we'd like to avoid!
Personally I'm moving to the point where if there's not a tarball I
won't spend my time packaging it.

> And is the email from ASLO enough for packagers to know about new
> releases? Any other notification that packagers need?

That is generally enough but a direct link to both the .xo and tarball
makes it quicker for me to update packages as I can grab it from the


More information about the Sugar-devel mailing list