[Sugar-devel] [SoaS] Policy for activities for downstream inclusion
simon at schampijer.de
Wed Sep 15 06:33:30 EDT 2010
thanks for your feedback.
On 09/14/2010 11:19 PM, pbrobinson at gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 11:27 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).
> 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.
Yes, I think the effort for uploading a bundle that can be easily
generated with the tools in sugar is not asked to much to have the
activity then packaged in a distribution.
>> 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
Yes, I think that effort can be requested when someone does a release.
More information about the Sugar-devel