On 16 Jul 2008, at 00:03, Martin Langhoff wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Gary C Martin > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Version (activity_version) is just some sortable entity to be agreed > > Please do read back on this - now lenghty - discussion. Unfortunately, > any monotonically increasing version does _not_ work, thanks to the > magic of maintenance releases. Let us bow collectively to the wisdom > of distro maintainers who are smart and have been doing this job for > far longer than us. > > In other words, let us do the same thing that rpm and dpkg do. > > It gives you both more expressive power, and a stupid "1.1.0.9z is > older than 2.0-alpha" cmp function for whenever you need it.
OK, sorry, I've clearly accidentally wandered in to a room full of hardcore gun toting bit heads – I'm now backing slowly towards the exit, my hands clearly raised. Please do be sure to post whatever (I'm sure excellent) final outcome is, clearly and somewhere public (perhaps http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Activity_bundles *** would be a start), so us external activity developers don't have to be part of this bit punk talk. *** Salient quotes: "Each activity.info file must have a "activity_version" key. The version is a single positive integer. Larger versions are considered "newer". The value assigned to this key should be considered opaque to the activity; the only requirement of the activity is that it must be larger for new activity builds." And: "Each activity.info file must have a "host_version" key. The version is a single positive integer. This specifies the version of the Sugar environment which the activity is compatible with. (fixme: need to specify sugar versions somewhere. Obviously we start with 1.)" **** **** if this is incorrect, please, PLEASE (!!) remove it from the f$# %ing bit rot wiki! --Gary _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar