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

Simon Schampijer simon at schampijer.de
Wed Sep 15 06:18:03 EDT 2010

On 09/14/2010 11:15 PM, pbrobinson at gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Walter Bender<walter.bender at gmail.com>  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:
>>>> 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).
>>>> 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.
>> Is it not still the practice to put tarballs on download.sl.o ???
> No its not! Sebastian and I got sick of sounding like broken down
> records so I have no idea of the current status.

Heh, I can see that frustration. When I saw the the spec that took the 
xo to extract the sources I thought there might have been an agreement 
between activity authors and packagers. Seems not. It looks more like 


More information about the Sugar-devel mailing list