[Sugar-devel] [SoaS] Policy for activities for downstream inclusion
garycmartin at googlemail.com
Tue Sep 14 19:58:07 EDT 2010
On 14 Sep 2010, at 15:14, Simon Schampijer <simon at schampijer.de> wrote:
> Thanks David and Walter for the feedback,
> On 09/14/2010 04:09 PM, Walter Bender wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:05 AM, David Farning<dfarning at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Simon Schampijer<simon at schampijer.de> wrote:
>>>> 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).
>>>> And is the email from ASLO enough for packagers to know about new
>>>> releases? Any other notification that packagers need?
>>> In the .deb side of the universe, we prefer tarballs but we can work
>>> directly from the git repository.
> We should not go from the git repository. Either use the .xo or a tarball.
>> Is it not still the practice to put tarballs on download.sl.o ???
> Well, the latest mails I have seen about activity releases (besides
> Chat) does come from ASLO and only state the .xo. If there are tarballs
> at d.sl.o they have not been announced ;D
I've been uploading me since Bernie kindly un blocked my shell account, though I totally understand why others might not manage this workflow, there's already many hoops to jump though for a casual activity developer to do for a release.
Are all the ASLO emails not enough? I'm getting three separate emails from the system for every release already!
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
More information about the Sugar-devel