On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 09:39:15PM -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote:On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:43:56PM -0500, Walter Bender wrote:Summary: It would facilitate the packaging of Sugar activities into RPMs and DEBs if there were additional information available in the activity.info file.
I would use such hints only as inspiration for Debian packaging, not rely on it.
None of these additional fields need be required, but their inclusion would make things easier. (This is not a new idea, but one that seems timely given all the upstream interest in Sugar these days.)I guess you meant _downstream_ interest above. Distributors are downstream to Sugarlabs, only GTK+, Python and similar are upstream, and I suspect that's not the ones gaining interest in Sugar.Yes. Downstream.
:-)
I based my proposal on a discussion with only a small sample of packagers. I take it from both Jonas and Aleksey that there may be better ways of assisting packagers. The goal is that activity developers do have a lot of knowledge about their creations and it would make sense to have them express it in some way that would save work for others. But what form this expression takes I leave to those more knowledgeable.
I certainly agree that sharing such info makes good sense - it only worried me if using a machine-readable format as that could create an expectation among activity developers of it being used automatically by distributors which I wouldn't do myself and recommend against others doing either.
Jonas, it may make sense not to depend on things like dependency names, etc. but I can imagine things like a summary, description, URL of the homepage, etc. could be reasonable to accept from developers.
It makes good sense for upstream to clearly express such metadata, but I still see it as distribution choice if using it verbatim or not.
As an example, the distributor may have a different interpretation of "Homepage" than upstream (as has been discussed before on this list).
If you really want to use a machine-readable format then I recommend using DOAP instead of reinventing the wheel. But even if you do, I still recommend to use an INSTALL file as well.
Hope that makes sense. If not please keep arguing! :-) - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
