<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Carol Farlow Lerche <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cafl@msbit.com">cafl@msbit.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> Why not provide a dependency declaration in the activity file which can be checked when the activity is installed?  It could inform the user that a particular package or library was needed.  I understand that different distros may package the dependencies differently, but it wouldn't be so bad if the user had to identify this at registration (if not an XO running a recognizeable distribution) or when using the activity.s.o site.  Then the checker could recognize which dependency declaration to use (or could announce "this activity has dependencies but your distribution hasn't been described" -- or words to that effect.<br> </blockquote></div><div><br></div>Because at this point, you might as well use a standard and well supported format for packaging: either LSB packages (RPMs), or Debian packages. (which, as I pointed out, both work on almost *every* distribution)<div> <br></div><div>As I recall, the only argument raised against using one of those formats was the administrative rights required to use them. Since dependancy installation is not something most children can do, administrative rights are needed, it seems, no matter what for some hardware installations. <br> -- <br>Luke Faraone<br><a href="http://luke.faraone.cc">http://luke.faraone.cc</a><br> </div>