Re: [Sugar-devel] .rpms vs .xos for Activity packaging

2009-01-13 Thread David Farning
Aleksey, You are taking on a hughly import piece of the puzzle. Mozilla struggled, and continues to struggle, to figure out how to package and distribute addons. Addons, for the most part, just work on the windows platform, because developers know what resources and apis are available. This be

Re: [Sugar-devel] .rpms vs .xos for Activity packaging

2009-01-13 Thread Luke Faraone
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Aleksey Lim wrote: > Hi all, > > Maybe its only my peculiar desire (to talk about packaging issues:), but... > > Since I'm trying support sugar in Gentoo/ALILinux/Mandriva, > I don't know how to treat honey activities: > > - package them all > and do not rely on

Re: [Sugar-devel] .rpms vs .xos for Activity packaging

2009-01-13 Thread Aleksey Lim
Hi all, Maybe its only my peculiar desire (to talk about packaging issues:), but... Since I'm trying support sugar in Gentoo/ALILinux/Mandriva, I don't know how to treat honey activities: - package them all and do not rely on w.l.o/addons.s.o - let user download them from w.l.o/addons.s.o -

Re: [Sugar-devel] .rpms vs .xos for Activity packaging

2009-01-12 Thread Aleksey Lim
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:44:52AM -0500, l...@faraone.cc wrote: > On 1/12/09, Aleksey Lim wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:43:01PM -0500, l...@faraone.cc wrote: > >> On 1/11/09, Aleksey Lim wrote: > >> > Hi all, > >> > > >> > Some thought after reading > >> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/

Re: [Sugar-devel] .rpms vs .xos for Activity packaging

2009-01-12 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:44:52AM -0500, l...@faraone.cc wrote: >On 1/12/09, Aleksey Lim wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:43:01PM -0500, l...@faraone.cc wrote: >>> On 1/11/09, Aleksey Lim wrote: >>> > Hi all, >>> > >>> > Some thought after readi

Re: [Sugar-devel] .rpms vs .xos for Activity packaging

2009-01-12 Thread Bert Freudenberg
On 12.01.2009, at 17:44, l...@faraone.cc wrote: > On 1/12/09, Aleksey Lim wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:43:01PM -0500, l...@faraone.cc wrote: >>> On 1/11/09, Aleksey Lim wrote: Hi all, Some thought after reading https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Sugar_on_Fedora:_RPMs_or_

Re: [Sugar-devel] .rpms vs .xos for Activity packaging

2009-01-12 Thread luke
On 1/12/09, Aleksey Lim wrote: > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:43:01PM -0500, l...@faraone.cc wrote: >> On 1/11/09, Aleksey Lim wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Some thought after reading >> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Sugar_on_Fedora:_RPMs_or_.xos%3F >> > >> > Maybe instead of choosing one format

Re: [Sugar-devel] .rpms vs .xos for Activity packaging

2009-01-12 Thread Aleksey Lim
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:43:01PM -0500, l...@faraone.cc wrote: > On 1/11/09, Aleksey Lim wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Some thought after reading > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Sugar_on_Fedora:_RPMs_or_.xos%3F > > > > Maybe instead of choosing one format for activities just add to > > activity.

[Sugar-devel] .rpms vs .xos for Activity packaging

2009-01-11 Thread Aleksey Lim
Hi all, Some thought after reading https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Sugar_on_Fedora:_RPMs_or_.xos%3F Maybe instead of choosing one format for activities just add to activity.info dependency in common/distro-unbinded notation: - Activity's author package code in .xo format with dependency string l