On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org wrote:
Hi all,
I've coded[1] initial implementation[2] for standalone 0install mode,
w/o any support from shell. So, activity could bundle saccharin module
to .xo and maybe 0install pure python library as well(otherwise
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 2:00 AM, Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org wrote:
I've coded[1] initial implementation[2] for standalone 0install mode,
w/o any support from shell. So, activity could bundle saccharin module
to .xo and maybe 0install pure python library as well(otherwise system
should
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 11:31:43PM +0100, Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 2:00 AM, Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org wrote:
I've coded[1] initial implementation[2] for standalone 0install mode,
w/o any support from shell. So, activity could bundle saccharin module
to .xo and
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 01:48:19PM -0500, Wade Brainerd wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org wrote:
Hi all,
I've coded[1] initial implementation[2] for standalone 0install mode,
w/o any support from shell. So, activity could bundle saccharin module
El Thu, 15-10-2009 a las 19:18 +0200, Martin Langhoff escribió:
Ok - that's good. I am familiar with the limitations we are hitting
with rpm and dpkg. What I truly wonder about is things like
'autopackage' and klik.
See also the 'see also' section in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Install
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org wrote:
Zero Install appears to have identified reasonable compromises for many
of these trade-offs. While I'm not yet claiming that z-i would be a
(Keeping it in the Sugar side... )
I think it's a very good idea to look into
yes, what is you exec overview/
why are you proposing to discard .xo bundling?
or is this an option?
With the XO 1.5 including a gnome desktop
and just for development purposes,
and environmental running environments
having a broader base
(read multi linux distro and even aspartamine)
and multi
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 11:05 AM, DancesWithCars danceswithc...@gmail.com
wrote:
yes, what is you exec overview/
why are you proposing to discard .xo bundling?
or is this an option?
I don't think that we're discussing discarding .xo bundling. I think we're
discussing augmenting .xo
El Thu, 15-10-2009 a las 10:32 +0200, Martin Langhoff escribió:
I think it's a very good idea to look into a userdir-centric packaging
system such as z-i. There are of course a few other alternatives, and
very well considered critiques of these systems (from OS-centric
packagers usually ;-) )
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org wrote:
Honestly? I think the most interesting feature of Zero Install is that
it has an active development community working to solve the same hard
problems that we are facing with our XO bundles.
Ok - that's good. I am
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Martin Langhoff
martin.langh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org wrote:
Honestly? I think the most interesting feature of Zero Install is that
it has an active development community working to solve the same
Dear Zero Install developers,
as you may know, Sugar is a learning environment consisting of
educational activities packaged and distributed as bundles, which are
some kind of glorified zip files.
This design was chosen because we wanted to enable our learners to
participate in the creation of
12 matches
Mail list logo
