On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 11:27 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).
In some cases we've used .xo files but its not ideal and its caused us packaging issues in Fedora as in a lot of cases the .xo files include binary blobs which is against Fedora packaging policies so we have to jump through extra hoops and its generally a pain we'd like to avoid! Personally I'm moving to the point where if there's not a tarball I won't spend my time packaging it. > And is the email from ASLO enough for packagers to know about new > releases? Any other notification that packagers need? That is generally enough but a direct link to both the .xo and tarball makes it quicker for me to update packages as I can grab it from the email. Peter _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel