[Sugar-devel] Adding information about the repository to activity.info file

[James Cameron]

On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 09:45:33AM -0300, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 5:36 PM, James Cameron <[1]quozl at laptop.org> wrote:
> 
>     On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 03:01:10PM -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
>     > Can I suggest that if we are going to touch the .info files, we also
>     > consider adding the maximum participants field (it is probably
>     > possible to compute from a simple examination of the code -- maybe a
>     > good GCI task). Having this in [2]activity.info makes it easier to test
>     > for in the Sugar Shell, allowing us to finally honor the limit on
>     > participants suggested by activity.max_participants.
>     >
>     > Any other changes to [3]activity.info we should be considering now?
> 
>     Just to get the conversation started ...
> 
>     - where to report bugs. 
> 
>     - where to look for a new release.
> 
> Is not the repository enough?

It often isn't clear, by looking at a repository, when a release
happened.  So some metadata is needed somewhere; either a convention
of tags, commit message, or tar.gz for packaging.

>     - what processor architectures are supported by the binaries enclosed.
> 
> This field would be optional, only needed for activities with binaries.
> What wold be the options? (i386, x86_64, arm??)

I don't know a standard way to describe those options.

>     - list of versions of Sugar certified by the activity.
> 
> Maybe sugar_version_min and sugar_version_max both optional?

I don't think a range is flexible enough.  A list is more flexible.

By certified I mean a developer has fully tested the activity on the
version of Sugar.

Not intended to block the activity though, but rather to inform.

>     - list of distributions certified by the activity.
> 
> This is difficult to know for the activity developer.

Yes, but it would have at least one entry.

>     - what distribution packages (beyond the Sugar standard list) are
>       required by the activity.
>    
> Again, haw can we solve the problem of dependencies packaged with different
> names 
> in different distros? Is this a problem today or package names are mostly
> standard?

Correct, there is no distribution agnostic standard.  So package names
would have to be qualified by distribution name.

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/