[Sugar-devel] discussion about dropping the emulator from the sugar package...

[Daniel Narvaez]

On 6 May 2013 11:47, Simon Schampijer <simon at schampijer.de> wrote:

> "Yes sugar-runner should just work in fedora as a replacement of
>> sugar-emulator. It only needs to be packaged."
>>
>> Why isn't it included in the sugar package, what is the advantages of
>> it and why the hell isn't it being discussed on the devel@ list?
>>
>
(Adding sugar-devel to cc)

It has been discussed on the list before.

[PATCH sugar] Drop sugar-emulator

In short the advantages are that it's more solid, better maintained and
tested (people are actually using it for development) and it works also
from a text console, without another X11 instance running.

It's split to a separate module because

1 Historic reason. It has been developed in sugar-build, in parallel with
sugar-emulator which was at the time used by sugar-jhbuild.
2 I think it just makes a lot of sense code modularization wise. It's
something built on the top of the normal sugar scripts and the two should
not be mixed (as we have been unfortunately doing with sugar-emulator). The
separate module makes the line harder to cross.

For what it's worth I'm not completely opposed about folding sugar-runner
back into sugar  (I suppose it would make packager lives a bit easier). But
I'm not going to do that work.

-- 
Daniel Narvaez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20130506/3fab3557/attachment.html>