On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 20:05:06 +0100, pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz
bmsch...@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
On 07/06/2010 11:51 AM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
Ok, I think the requirements for activity bundles could be:
1) Support multiple CPU architectures
2) Support multiple distros (and different versions of same distro)
3) Centralized build cluster (submit one source package, get multiple
binary packages)
4) Support inter-bundle dependencies
(e.g.: GCompris + voices, OOo4Kids + dictionaries)
5) Support activity - OS dependencies (e.g.: espeak for Speak,
squeak for etoys...)
6) Work with any programming language (setup.py is python-centric)
7) Easy to learn for activity writers without too much distro-hacking
experience
These requirements would fit well both rpm and deb, with OpenSUSE
Build Service or their native build clusters.
I think you are missing an important requirement: installation without
elevated permissions.
PackageKit can already do that. There was a furore around 6 months ago
when someone enabled it by default for Fedora.
I think that's a little different. Fedora allowed an unprivileged user to
install a package, but giving the package full privileges.
For 0sugar, I assume, the user is fully privileged (it's their machine);
it's the package that should be restricted, not the user.
This distinction has caused a lot of confusion in the past, and I've now
added a section to http://0install.net/injector-security.html to try and
clarify it.
I've also added a demonstration of using 0install for sandboxing, showing
how sandboxed processes can still share libraries (which doesn't happen
if you just create lots of separate RPM databases):
http://0install.net/ebox.html
Hope that helps,
--
Dr Thomas Leonard http://0install.net
GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
