On 2/11/09, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:24:20AM -0500, Luke Faraone wrote: >>On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote: >> >>> Debian POV: Someone needs to volunteer packaging >>> "sugar-etoys-activity". Drop an email to >>> debian-olpc-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org . >>> >>> Ubuntu POV: Someone needs to volunteer hacking[1] together a sugar >>> activity package until a Debian package can be adopted. More info at >>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SugarTeam >>> >>> I recommend helping as "upstream" as possible instead of only locally >>> for Ubuntu. YMMV. >>> >> >>Yes, but our "hacks" are the result of a lack of understanding of your >>git-based packaging; > > That is one way to put it. > > Another is that you have had no interest in starting out with simple > stuff before complex stuff. I kept recommending you to try package an > activity with no odd dependencies (i.e. written in Python), but you kept > wanting to upgrade core Sugar libraries. > > You do not even need to use my packaging style. Just do not expect my > help, then. Discuss it with other members of the OLPC Alioth list, with > debian-mentors or whatever. > > > All I say here is to avoid duplicate work: Package for Debian and pull > that into derivatives, rather than packaging uniquely for each pet > derived distro. > > > >>It's interesting that Ubuntu had *working* sugar packages with *more* >>working activities six months ago. This is no longer the case, as we've >>synced to Debian packaging (which had some show-stopper bugs that >>required us to patch *each* activity you/we were shipping). > > Blame yourself for abandoning superior(?) packaging! My reasons for > different packaging style than older work by Jani Monoses is here: > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-olpc-devel/2008-April/000084.html > > Blame yourself for needing distro-specific workarounds: They are caused > by your "running ahead" of Debian and then later wanting to adopt Debian > packaging that when in slightly different direction than your earlier > work. > > >>If you'd support a sugar-whatever-activity package that didn't use >>git-buildpackage or the multi-branch/tree workflow, I'd be happy to >>produce one, > > If you by "you" are referring to Debian, then sure, Debian supports > other packaging styles. > > If you are referring to me personally, then no, I see no reason to > support any other packaging styles than I want to use myself. > > If you are referring to the Alioth team, then feel free to use other > schemes. I am not the law. Heck, I am not even an admin of that group. I > just happen to actually get some work done. > > > Your freedom to choose packaging style should come as no surprise: > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-olpc-devel/2008-December/000681.html > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-olpc-devel/2009-January/000885.html > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-olpc-devel/2009-February/000894.html > > >>but as it stands the build and import process is undocumented. > > Bullshit! > > Complex parts, irrelevant for activity packaging, is missing. > > So stop whining and start packaging some simple Sugar activities.
Maybe we're just thick, but neither Morgan nor I were able to use your git README.packaging to upgrade a package to a new upstream version. It doesn't matter wheter we were upgrading sugar-base or Pippy. It seems that the file is missing some steps; moreover, how can we be expected to package new activities with git when even the steps for maintaining existing ones are lacking. -- Luke Faraone http://luke.faraone.cc _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep