On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 10:31:56AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Tomeu Vizoso<to...@sugarlabs.org> wrote: > > If people want to package and maintain those as .rpms, I don't see any > > problem with that. But if we don't have enough hands for that, the > > alternative I proposed might be worth it (is actually what SoaS does > > when creating an image). > > I think its worth packaging the core activities as rpms such as > read/write/record/speak etc to allow easy testing upstream to make it > easy for testing regressions like we discussed at Fudcon. For the rest > of the activities it might be worth looking at something like an > activity bundle rpm or something similar.
You're right. So is Tomeu, though. In order to debate Activities-as-RPMs vs. Activities-as-XO-bundles one must also take into account the distribution scenario. Activities-as-RPMs currently are worse at adhering to the relevant Sugar HIG sections[1,2] than Activities-as-XO-bundles (not that the latter are fully in compliance, either - they're just better). RPMs should exist as they make sense in some cases - e.g., LTSP where there is one version of Maze for all OS users. They don't seem to make as much sense for SoaS / XO deployments because we want the user to update the activities themselves from the Sugar GUI, which currently most distros support (implicitly) via XO bundles. > > Tomeu > > Peter Martin 1. http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Design_Team/Human_Interface_Guidelines/Activities/Activity_Bundles#Bundle_Types 2. http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Development_Team/Almanac/Activity_Bundles#Location
pgpzM2jyy6m36.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
