Nothing changed in sugar itself, I just fixed obvious bugs, like
environment variables not being consistently respected, nonsense code
duplication etc.
About sugar-build, the change is necessary because you want everything to
be contained in the mounted directory (sugar-build), so that it's availa
I people continue using ~/Activities directory is not a problem, right?
What is the point of move the directory where the activities are installed?
Changing these directories without a good motive _is_ a problem.
Nobody will update the documentation, wiki pages,
tutorials, and development book, th
It is only an issue for sugar-build, not Sugar installed by
non-developers. And it is documented [1]. And ls -s
sugar-build/activities Activities works.
-walter
[1] http://developer.sugarlabs.org/dev-environment.md.html#activities
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> I peopl
Fair enough, I'll let people which cares about gtk2 toolkit and the dev
command fix that bug :)
On Wednesday, 18 September 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> -1
>
> Please don't remove the dev command.
> It works. If you don't use does not means other don't find it useful.
>
> Gonzalo
>
>
> On Wed, Se
On Wednesday, 18 September 2013, Manuel Quiñones wrote:
>
> > I wonder if we should just drop the dev command, and suggest to develop
> > directly in sugar-build/activities (or ~/Activities when outside
> > sugar-build). All that the command does is to create a symlink anyway, if
> > someone really
-1
Please don't remove the dev command.
It works. If you don't use does not means other don't find it useful.
Gonzalo
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Manuel Quiñones wrote:
> Sorry for the late answer,
>
> 2013/9/15 Daniel Narvaez :
> > Hello,
> >
> > as discussed in another thread, the suga
Sorry for the late answer,
2013/9/15 Daniel Narvaez :
> Hello,
>
> as discussed in another thread, the sugar-toolkit bundlebuilder dev command
> is not respecting the SUGAR_ACTIVITIES_PATH (a fix for that landed in
> sugar-toolkit-gtk3 recently).
Thanks for the fix.
> I wonder if we should just
https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/pull/43
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Link to the pull request? I don't see it in the sugarlabs/ list.
>
>
> On 15 September 2013 14:16, Walter Bender wrote:
>>
>> developers should be able to grok sugar-build/activities (as long
Link to the pull request? I don't see it in the sugarlabs/ list.
On 15 September 2013 14:16, Walter Bender wrote:
> developers should be able to grok sugar-build/activities (as long as
> it is documented -- see PR-41).
>
> -walter
>
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 4:13 AM, Daniel Narvaez
> wrote:
>
developers should be able to grok sugar-build/activities (as long as
it is documented -- see PR-41).
-walter
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 4:13 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Hello,
>
> as discussed in another thread, the sugar-toolkit bundlebuilder dev command
> is not respecting the SUGAR_ACTIVITIES_PA
10 matches
Mail list logo
