On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 01:13:58PM +0100, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 13:11, Aleksey Lim <alsr...@member.fsf.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 11:08:11AM +0100, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 02:32, Aleksey Lim <alsr...@member.fsf.org> wrote: > >> > Hi all, > >> > > >> > While tweaking/hacking some activities I have to, from time to time, > >> > copy&paste code > >> > between activities. Sometime it works well: tempo slider from TamTam > >> > activities means 20-30 lines and 5-7 images. Now (for Speak activity) I > >> > need > >> > ChatBox widget from Chat and it costs 400 lines. > >> > > >> > Its a good idea to support those 400 lines in one repo. Whats the right > >> > place for > >> > it? And in common, should we collect such widgets/libraries in one place, > >> > sugar-toolkit? new project sugar-widgets? > >> > >> A new project seems like more work for both upstream developers and > >> packagers. Any downsides if we put them in sugar-toolkit? > > > > I'm thinking about activity API based package, in fact sugar-toolkit doesn't > > fit to that role, since sugar-toolkit itself provides that API. > > Sorry, can you rephrase? Don't understand what you meant here.
I mean new sugar-widgets package should use only public activity API, something like a current-sugar's-version-independent link between sugar and activities (mostly honey activities). -- Aleksey _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel