On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6 May 2013 11:47, Simon Schampijer <si...@schampijer.de> wrote: >>> >>> "Yes sugar-runner should just work in fedora as a replacement of >>> sugar-emulator. It only needs to be packaged." >>> >>> Why isn't it included in the sugar package, what is the advantages of >>> it and why the hell isn't it being discussed on the devel@ list? > > > (Adding sugar-devel to cc) > > It has been discussed on the list before.
I'm aware the direct merits of dropping emulator has been discussed but the thread didn't really answer the question I have above... which is "Why isn't it included in the sugar package, what is the advantages of it?" > [PATCH sugar] Drop sugar-emulator > > In short the advantages are that it's more solid, better maintained and > tested (people are actually using it for development) and it works also from > a text console, without another X11 instance running. > > It's split to a separate module because > > 1 Historic reason. It has been developed in sugar-build, in parallel with > sugar-emulator which was at the time used by sugar-jhbuild. > 2 I think it just makes a lot of sense code modularization wise. It's > something built on the top of the normal sugar scripts and the two should > not be mixed (as we have been unfortunately doing with sugar-emulator). The > separate module makes the line harder to cross. Advantages of having it together is that as the sugar release changes the changes are made to sugar the changes to sugar-runner are in lock step so you should never get into a situation where either shouldn't work together. It makes it easier from a test/QA that the releases are together and you don't get into situations where you need to deal with a "this version works with, doesn't work with" releases. > For what it's worth I'm not completely opposed about folding sugar-runner > back into sugar (I suppose it would make packager lives a bit easier). But > I'm not going to do that work. I don't have time to maintain another package either and from a packager point of view it adds quite a bit more work especially on the QA side of things. I'm also still completely unaware of what dependencies are needed to run it over the old one. Peter _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
