[Sugar-devel] [sugarlabs/sugar-build] run command showing too many errors and warnings in Ubuntu 16.04 LTS (#49)

James Cameron quozl at laptop.org
Tue Apr 25 21:38:31 EDT 2017

No, the requirement isn't mandatory; there's alternative requirements,

Also, we've since greatly simplified "development environment" to
include native packaged Sugar, which is not a substitute.

On the other hand, candidates need to prove their capability somehow;
sugar-build was once a useful substitute for examinations, and if they
are going to contribute to Sugar through code development it was a good

However, our previous candidates are having a lot of problems figuring
out how to fix sugar-build, and this makes;

- the native packaged Sugar environment; and,

- the alternative requirements (pull requests or Sugarizer),

much more useful than before.

In the end, this is up to Walter as responsible contact.

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 06:50:59AM +0800, Tony Anderson wrote:
> Yeah!
> Now if we could only get the GSOC invitations to stop requiring candidates to
> build a 'development environment' and ask them to use Sugar., not a sugar
> substitute.
> Tony
> On 04/26/2017 04:44 AM, James Cameron wrote:
>     [1]@iamutkarshtiwari, certainly not. Fix sugar-build, not sugar.
>     sugar-build is only an emulator, and is not used very much at all. sugar is
>     used by the most people.
>>     You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
>     Reply to this email directly, [2]view it on GitHub, or [3]mute the thread.*
> References:
> [1] https://github.com/iamutkarshtiwari
> [2] https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-build/issues/49#issuecomment-297159303
> [3] https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAULkt75KJJrcz9o3og71gcYeOqzV92Iks5rzltEgaJpZM4MmBhE

> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

James Cameron

More information about the Sugar-devel mailing list