On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Aleksey Lim <alsr...@member.fsf.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 01:18:04AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: >> Bernie wrote: >> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 12:02 -0400, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote: >> >> I think you are missing an important requirement: installation without >> >> elevated permissions. >> > >> > Rainbow has been bit-rotting for the past 2 years >> >> Ahem. Sugar's integration with rainbow has bit-rotted, been rebuilt, and >> still >> received no independent testing despite repeated calls for same. >> >> Rainbow, on the other hand, has seen a major new release, feature development >> that spurred new work in general Linux sandboxing, and is now available in >> more >> distributions than ever before thanks to dedicated support by folks like >> Luke, >> Sascha, and Jonas. >> >> Finally, if rainbow itself now receives little day-to-day attention, this is >> because it mostly does what its authors require and it does it well enough >> not >> to require their continued hand-holding. > > To be honest I wasn't a fan of rainbow a bit time ago.. > But having Zero Sugar fully implemented and potential possibility to launch > almost any piece of software - compile on demand is a regular workflow within > 0install (existed sugar doesn't not let such possibility:), rainbow should > be more then essential requirement.
I took some time to read up on 0install -- very impressive technology, good work. I agree with Michael that this (userland installs) is the direction Sugar should be pursuing. With rainbow (or other sandbox) integration, this would accomplish all of the original goals with a much more robust packaging and dependency system than the .xo bundle. --scott -- ( http://cscott.net/ ) _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel