[Sugar-devel] Sugar 0.100 features on Sugar 0.102 build

[Jerry Vonau]

> On September 2, 2014 at 11:54 AM Sebastian Silva
> <sebastian at fuentelibre.org> wrote:
>
>
> I don't care one way or the other how you guys configure
> olpc-os-builder, but as a Sugar platform contributor, I think "sugar"
> packages should come with all the bells and whistles included, and if
> any deployment wants to chop and censor functionality, then it should
> be their problem, not the other way around.
>
 
So much for being "volunteer" deployment friendly, now you have to "fix
sugar" at the image creation time, patching out/in what you want in the
image, in place of just not installing certain functionality in the first
place. Are you suggesting that datastore, toolkit(s), base, be re-merged
into a single massive rpm? I think not, the control-panel rpm split is a
natural progression of this progressive thinking.

This take it or leave it attitude that is displayed here is the reason
myself and Dextrose(Activity Central) came into being part of the ecosystem
in the first place, for the needs of the deployment. We listened to what
the deployment wanted to do and worked towards that goal.

I guess that this is just another way to ensure further work is only done
by a sugarlabs/olpc associate.

Just my 3 cents,

Jerry


> Regards,
> Sebastian
>
> El mar, 2 de sep 2014 a las 10:01 AM, Gonzalo Odiard
> <godiard at sugarlabs.org> escribió:
> >>
> >> Gonzalo's question seems to suggest that the dependency on
> >> sugar-cp-background should be declared by the sugar package spec
> >> file.
> >> I disagree.  I think it should be a decision by deployment team.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Yes. That is the reason I asked.
> > Anyway, no problem from my part if the rpm is added by default in 
> > kspkglist.50.sugar.inc
> >
> > Gonzalo
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel