On 05/07/2013 12:44 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
On 7 May 2013 10:01, Peter Robinson <pbrobin...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
The two modules are very decoupled. I think it's unlikely you will get
mismatches (although it could still happen of course).
In practice, unless something changes, it's much more likely that you will
get a sugar-emulator not working with the sugar in the same tarball,
because no one have tested it before releasing.
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.
The dependencies should be the same as sugar-emulator.
As I said in my answer to Simon, I see sugar-runner a bit as an optional
module. imo if yo don't have time to maintain it, it's fine to omit.
Ok, sounds good to just omit it then, for me at least.
Simon
_______________________________________________
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
