On 12 July 2012 15:22, Manuel Kaufmann <humi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 5:48 AM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I prefer to not support old distributions in sugar-build, to reduce >> the maintenance cost. > > I think we can support Fedora 16 meanwhile it doesn't take too much > effort for us to maintain it. I mean, in the future when it will be > complicated to maintain we could say: "Fedora 16 is no longer > supported" and that's it.
To add a distro to the supported list in the README/wiki, I really want a buildbot slave for it. That's because when I make changes to the repository I need to make sure they works everywhere and I can't test on every single distro. I don't want stuff to bitrot, people try out sugar-build on a supported distro and run away with the impression that getting it to work is hard, needs tweaking or that stuff is half broken. That happened with sugar-jhbuild since forever and I think it was the main issue with it. So if we want F16 as an official distro we will need to setup a buildbot slave (I don't have time to do so rigth now). On the other hand I would be fine with adding F16 as unsupported. Basically not listed in the docs and with a big warning "it might or might not work, we suggest you pick a supported distro" at deps installation time. We already have something similar for !ubuntu && !fedora distros, except in this case we would actually install the dependencies as best as we can instead of just listing them. Marco _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel