On 09/14/2010 11:15 PM, pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Walter Bender<walter.ben...@gmail.com>
> 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.
>>
>> Is it not still the practice to put tarballs on download.sl.o ???
>
> No its not! Sebastian and I got sick of sounding like broken down
> records so I have no idea of the current status.
Heh, I can see that frustration. When I saw the the spec that took the
xo to extract the sources I thought there might have been an agreement
between activity authors and packagers. Seems not. It looks more like
resignation.
Regards,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
