A correction, SUGAR_ACTIVITY_ROOT it is.<br><br>I didn't realize this was a done decision. Sorry for the chatter.<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/14/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Michael Burns</b> <<a href="mailto:maburns@gmail.com">
maburns@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><span class="q"><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/9/07,
<b class="gmail_sendername">Bert Freudenberg</b> <<a href="mailto:bert@freudenbergs.de" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">bert@freudenbergs.de</a>> wrote:</span><br></span><div><span class="q">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
But it is a sugar-specific variable for a sugar activity. Other<br>variables like SUGAR_PROFILE or SUGAR_PREFIX might be unset, too.</blockquote></span><div><br>MStone added this as ACTIVITY_ROOT<br><br>Seeing as we need to ask developers to start making use of it, we should be sure to be happy with the decision.
<br><br>SUGAR_ACTIVITY_ROOT versus ACTIVITY_ROOT ... Thoughts, oh wise ones?</div></div></blockquote></div><br>-- <br>Michael Burns * Intern<br> One Laptop Per Child