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

Peter Robinson pbrobinson at gmail.com
Tue May 7 04:01:07 EDT 2013


On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I'm aware the direct merits of dropping emulator has been discussed
but the thread didn't really answer the question I have above... which
is "Why isn't it included in the sugar package, what is the advantages
of it?"

> [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.

Advantages of having it together is that as the sugar release changes
the changes are made to sugar the changes to sugar-runner are in lock
step so you should never get into a situation where either shouldn't
work together. It makes it easier from a test/QA that the releases are
together and you don't get into situations where you need to deal with
a "this version works with, doesn't work with" releases.

> 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.

I don't have time to maintain another package either and from a
packager point of view it adds quite a bit more work especially on the
QA side of things. I'm also still completely unaware of what
dependencies are needed to run it over the old one.

Peter


More information about the Sugar-devel mailing list