>I fail to see what makes the XO case different from the rest of the >software world - from the pages you link
I agree that the pages I cited presuppose that you understand how our requirements differ from those of the rest of the world. Some specific examples: - Our users often can't make informed decisions about what software they should be running. - Our users probably do not have root on their machines, yet still need to perform package-management-like tasks. - In addition to accepting code hierarchically from upstream providers, we want to share code fluidly between XOs. - We want the software we provide to support a higher standard of security (defined in Bitfrost) than other systems strive to provide. - We must attempt to minimize bandwidth usage while moving bits around and must tolerate long networking delays. - We cannot rely on any established public key infrastructure to verify the identities of code providers or the authenticity of the code they are providing. - We expect users will be constantly redistributing modified versions of software that they downloaded to their systems. - We expect that our user groups will, in general, NOT share common languages with one another (or, necessarily, with us). - We expect that many users will be translating their own software. - We MAY NOT assume that users have global connectivity with which to satisfy dependencies, verify claims about information, distribute their work, etc. For these reasons, in my humble opinion, choosing our software packaging format and guidelines (of which version numbering is but a single aspect) is NOT A TRIVIAL EXERCISE and is not as simple as picking an off-the-shelf format. (I wish that the reality were otherwise). Do you require more justification? Regards, Michael _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar