Thanks David and Walter for the feedback,
On 09/14/2010 04:09 PM, Walter Bender wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:05 AM, David Farning<dfarn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Simon Schampijer<si...@schampijer.de>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> what is the current status for activity releases in order to include
>>> them in distributions like Soas*? Do you guys need tarballs or did you
>>> switch over to construct the rpms from the .xo? For example the latest
>>> Paint rpm uses the .xo AFAIK (build even the binaries from the
>>> non-python sources in the bundle).
>>>
>>> And is the email from ASLO enough for packagers to know about new
>>> releases? Any other notification that packagers need?
>>
>> In the .deb side of the universe, we prefer tarballs but we can work
>> directly from the git repository.
We should not go from the git repository. Either use the .xo or a tarball.
> Is it not still the practice to put tarballs on download.sl.o ???
>
> -walter
Well, the latest mails I have seen about activity releases (besides
Chat) does come from ASLO and only state the .xo. If there are tarballs
at d.sl.o they have not been announced ;D
Regards,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
