On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 2:52 AM, Bernie Innocenti <ber...@codewiz.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 23:31 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > > [...] > >> > I'm not against packaging Sugar for RHEL. I just think it would cost >> > more to support after the first year or two. >> >> Agreed. And in fact I said that exactly and hence my reference to the >> 18 month to 2.5 year point but the fact is by then you'll almost be to >> RHEL N+1 release so you role it over. > > Oh, now I get it. And I think I agree with you. > > >> The EL packaging makes it easy enough that its "if it compile and >> there is demand for it then you can do so because to push it out isn't >> had" if it stops compiling you send it out to the lists and either >> people care enough to fix the problem or else it stays on what ever >> the currently compiling version is. Sort of like the extended >> maintenance of the 0.84.x releases. > > Agreed here too (we're on the good way). > > >> Your making the problem like a Cross Road in a road. Its really not >> that. We are going to be following the upstream Fedora releases but I >> really don't think it will be hard to follow a RHEL release train >> either. In the F-7 to F-10 time frame the changes were massive. I know >> I had to assist in merging them upstream. But since then there's not >> been massive underlying changes that aren't manageable. The biggest I >> think are probably Tomeu's plans for the telepathy stuff and that is >> just to bring us back in line with the main line. > > I really hope you're wrong, but I'm afraid you're correct. We'd still > have to change so much before Sugar becomes as mature and usable as > Gnome is nowadays. > > Besides toemu's rewrite of the collaboration stack, there's Sascha's > rewrite of the datastore still in the works.
Yes, but I suspect that's more an internal change to the underlying structure and design rather than something that is going to require the latest and greatest library version X that's not released yet. >> I think the next big disruptive change will be python3 and associated >> pygtk changes, and while I don't have a crystal ball I think we can >> either stick with the current and it will be supported or there will >> be ways to support the new stuff. > > I'm not looking forward for Python 3. Every other large Python project > has been procrastinating on this transition because there's not much to > gain and a lot to loose. Yes, but its starting to pick momentum now. The first 3.x release is out fixing up some of the issues. Fedora 13 will have a python3 package and the python hack fest hosted at OLPC's office to bring up the gnome python bindings in preparation for gnome 3 also had quite a focus on support for python3 too, > For us, switching to Python 3 would be unthinkably disruptive: half of > the activities would remain broken for years, unless we maintain a > Python 2 stack for backwards compatibility... /me shrugs And there is a perfect reason for a stable distro such as RHEL or CentOS :-) Peter _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel