Aleksey Lim wrote: > what ASLO is, > in my mind it was deployment agnostic thus if we have packages for 0.84 on > bunch of distros, ASLO activities that are stated 0.84 ready should just > run.
I agree. OLPC needs this as badly as anyone. OLPC already supports users on a mix of Fedora 9- and Fedora 11-based systems. For all I know there might still be a few running Fedora 7 and Sugar <0.82. The situation is only likely to get more mixed in the future, and OLPC appears to be moving seriously toward ARM-based laptops, so even individual OLPC schools will be running a mixture of different CPU architectures. >> As for the rest... I think .xo bundles should be absolutely free of binary >> executables, or anything else that depends on more than the Sugar >> Platform. We should then introduce a different (better!) bundle format >> that supports such dependencies, based on 0bundle, 0install, etc. As a >> temporary codename, call it ".x0". > > well, and it was the main purpose of SLOBs request, to know how sugar > should move forward. And once more it is not my idle curiosity, in my > mind ASLO turns to be a garbage heap of blobs when there is no chance to > know will particular blob run in particular environment or not I don't think SLOB can help much here. I think we are already approaching consensus. Part of that consensus is: we can't afford to "just drop" all the "incomplete .xo's" that require external dependencies or include non-portable executables. Before we can clean up the current mess, we need a solid, supported solution for those Activities. --Ben
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel