On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote:
> Debian POV: Someone needs to volunteer packaging "sugar-etoys-activity". > Drop an email to debian-olpc-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org . > > Ubuntu POV: Someone needs to volunteer hacking[1] together a sugar > activity package until a Debian package can be adopted. More info at > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SugarTeam > > I recommend helping as "upstream" as possible instead of only locally > for Ubuntu. YMMV. > Yes, but our "hacks" are the result of a lack of understanding of your git-based packaging; we found it much simpler to use a workflow like svn-buildpackage with get-orig-source where we don't have to deal with multiple branches, etc. All the benifits of using git are moot since you use a patch system, which I think is a better workflow. It's interesting that Ubuntu had *working* sugar packages with *more* working activities six months ago. This is no longer the case, as we've synced to Debian packaging (which had some show-stopper bugs that required us to patch *each* activity you/we were shipping). If you'd support a sugar-whatever-activity package that didn't use git-buildpackage or the multi-branch/tree workflow, I'd be happy to produce one, but as it stands the build and import process is undocumented. The lack of proper documentaiton has caused Morgan and I considerable frustration, adn was the reason that we decided to fork into non-git packaging for our temporary Ubuntu "hacks". (ie "making it work in a month so other people can actually use it") [1] I do not mean to say that Ubuntu packaging in principle is any worse > quality than packages adopted from Debian. Just that Ubuntu generally > seems to generally favor passing on the grunt work to Debian and treat > locally packaged stuff as temporary, i.e. hacks. > -- Luke Faraone http://luke.faraone.cc
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep