2009/8/29 Tomeu Vizoso to...@sugarlabs.org:
Ok, so the idea is to focus our resources on the distribution level?
I'm not very fond of that because:
- polishing a distribution is _lots_ of work. Canonical, Novell,
Redhat, etc. are putting lots of resources into there. I think that a
small
Well, I wasn't attempting to solve anything. I thought I was just
brainstorming.
These past few weeks there have been a lot of discussions about
processes. Meanwhile, I am heading into the classroom with a
somewhat unstable and unfinished platform not to mention very little
guidance as to
2009/8/29 Philippe Clérié phili...@gcal.net:
Well, I wasn't attempting to solve anything. I thought I was just
brainstorming.
These past few weeks there have been a lot of discussions about
processes. Meanwhile, I am heading into the classroom with a
somewhat unstable and unfinished platform
This is a bit of a stretch, but would it be possible to distribute
GIMPLE or LLVM IR and finish the compilation on installation?
Installing would take longer, but it should work on any architecture
the code can compile to.
2009/8/29 Tomeu Vizoso to...@sugarlabs.org:
2009/8/29 Philippe Clérié
Your points are well taken and generally I agree with them. Except
that I never suggested you should abandon upstream development.
Sugar is your calling card, your differentiator, your trademark, your
value added... etc, etc, etc. It's what make you, you. :-) I would
never think of abandoning
2009/8/29 Philippe Clérié phili...@gcal.net:
Your points are well taken and generally I agree with them. Except
that I never suggested you should abandon upstream development.
Sugar is your calling card, your differentiator, your trademark, your
value added... etc, etc, etc. It's what make
2009/8/29 Philippe Clérié phili...@gcal.net:
Your points are well taken and generally I agree with them. Except
that I never suggested you should abandon upstream development.
Sugar is your calling card, your differentiator, your trademark, your
value added... etc, etc, etc. It's what make
Lucian Branescu wrote:
This is a bit of a stretch, but would it be possible to distribute
GIMPLE or LLVM IR and finish the compilation on installation?
Installing would take longer, but it should work on any architecture
the code can compile to.
Currently, Sugar has a number of blessed
I suggested pre-parsed code mostly to get rid of dependency on headers
and other source packages; a bit like a JIT that always compiles and
caches everything. LLVM IR in particular is just a high lever
assembler, so it could be distributed without any dependencies (even
on build tools).
There's
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:13:24AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
If fat binaries are not desired, which alternatives do we have?
1) Include more aggressively/liberally arch-dependent stuff in Sucrose,
and include/write wrappers for popular arch-independent languages
(e.g. Python)
2)
[readding sugar-devel]
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:04, Peter Robinsonpbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
Bobby Powers wrote:
I think having something like:
example.activity
|-arch/
|-arch/x86/
|-arch/x86/bin/
|-arch/x86/lib/
|-arch/armel/
...
could work. Sugar could set an environmental
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:23, Peter Robinsonpbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:04, Peter Robinsonpbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
Bobby Powers wrote:
I think having something like:
example.activity
|-arch/
|-arch/x86/
|-arch/x86/bin/
|-arch/x86/lib/
|-arch/armel/
...
Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Tomeu Vizosoto...@sugarlabs.org wrote:
Yeah, I guess Jonas' suggestion of promoting platform independent
bundles as first class addresses this concern.
+1
I personally don't think we are going to be able to outdo rpms nor
debs so
Peter Robinson wrote:
I think from the sugar perspective there needs to be some
standard defined and recommendation made +to make supporting it easier
rather than just sitting on the fence.
I agree. I am trying to devise such a recommendation. My goal is that
the recommendation also be a
I agree completely on Jonas proposal to give a strong identity to Activity
developed within a sugar-portability shield,
and let me expand a bit the concept to come to a proposal for a little
classification of activity based on supported features, testing and
development.
I think this approach
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:07 PM, jpriti...@pobox.com wrote:
Martin Langhoff wrote:
Of course, Sugar Shell then asks the _distro_ tools to satisfy the
requirements (PackageKit may be a good abstraction, otherwise a bit of
glue to drive yum and apt might be needed).
This makes sense to me. All
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Benjamin M.
Schwartzbmsch...@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Benjamin M.
Schwartzbmsch...@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
I think I am understanding. My claim is that different distros are
sufficiently dissimilar that we
On 28 Aug 2009, at 11:57, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:51, Peter Robinsonpbrobin...@gmail.com
wrote:
As a developer, dropping .xo support would take a lot of work
from my
shoulders, but I suspect our users would kill us...
I suspect users will kill you as well when
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:02:44PM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:37, Jonas Smedegaardd...@jones.dk wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:13:24AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
If fat binaries are not desired, which alternatives do we have?
1) Include more
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 18:55, Jonas Smedegaardd...@jones.dk wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:02:44PM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:37, Jonas Smedegaardd...@jones.dk wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:13:24AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
If fat binaries are not
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 07:11:54AM -0400, Walter Bender wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 6:57 AM, Tomeu Vizosoto...@sugarlabs.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:51, Peter Robinsonpbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
As a developer, dropping .xo support would take a lot of work
from my shoulders, but I
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:16:36PM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
Also, Sugar has been reported to run on the Gdium which uses a MIPS
Loongson CPU. If someone on this list has access to one of those, we
could check that activities with binaries are made to run there as
well.
Yeah, I applied for
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 07:02:30PM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 18:55, Jonas Smedegaardd...@jones.dk wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:02:44PM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:37, Jonas Smedegaardd...@jones.dk wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at
Sharp PC-Z1:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/27/sharps-5-inch-pc-z1-netwalker-honors-the-zaurus-legacy/
Nokia N900:
http://maemo.nokia.com/n900/
A new wave of devices is approaching. They have touchscreens, but they
also have qwerty keyboards. They have long battery life, and built-in
wireless
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Benjamin M.
Schwartzbmsch...@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Sharp PC-Z1:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/27/sharps-5-inch-pc-z1-netwalker-honors-the-zaurus-legacy/
Nokia N900:
http://maemo.nokia.com/n900/
A new wave of devices is approaching. They have
David Farning wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Benjamin M.
Schwartzbmsch...@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
1. Many Activities contain Fedora 9 x86-32 binary code, and just won't run
on other platforms. We need to reach a consensus on a multiplatform
standard for Activities, and then implement
26 matches
Mail list logo
