Luke Faraone wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Carol Farlow Lerche <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Why not provide a dependency declaration in the activity file which can be >> checked when the activity is installed? It could inform the user that a >> particular package or library was needed. I understand that different >> distros may package the dependencies differently, but it wouldn't be so bad >> if the user had to identify this at registration (if not an XO running a >> recognizeable distribution) or when using the activity.s.o site. Then the >> checker could recognize which dependency declaration to use (or could >> announce "this activity has dependencies but your distribution hasn't been >> described" -- or words to that effect. >> > > Because at this point, you might as well use a standard and well supported > format for packaging: either LSB packages (RPMs), or Debian packages. > (which, as I pointed out, both work on almost *every* distribution) > As I recall, the only argument raised against using one of those formats was > the administrative rights required to use them. Since dependancy > installation is not something most children can do, administrative rights > are needed, it seems, no matter what for some hardware installations.
Discussions we had at FUDCon about this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Sugar_on_Fedora:_RPMs_or_.xos%3F Best, Simon _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
