Re: [Sugar-devel] .rpms vs .xos for Activity packaging
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org 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 w.l.o/addons.s.o - let user download them from w.l.o/addons.s.o I do think this would be the best option, if we're able to hammer out a spec for deps that is easy to parse. - prevent installing unsupported (for current platform) activities - blobs in activities, what should I do with pre-built 32b .so on x86_64 (and future ARM/MIPS) platform 32b binaries will work on 64bit systems. However, maybe we should extend the XO bundle spec to have our .xo builder also build an .xos source file that can be compiled later -- Luke Faraone http://luke.faraone.cc ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] .rpms vs .xos for Activity packaging
On 1/12/09, Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:43:01PM -0500, l...@faraone.cc wrote: On 1/11/09, Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org 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.info dependency in common/distro-unbinded notation: - Activity's author package code in .xo format with dependency string like 'Requires = pygtk' in activity.info - user downloads .xo and pass it to distro-specific installer; installer translates dependency from distro-unbinded notation to native package name and pass it to package manager; and install activity itself. Something to consider: different distros will have different package naming conventions and versioning. We might want to encorage using the fedora dep conventions and look into how the alien package handles this. You missed my main purpose: activity author should not known about variety of GNU/Linux distros, his behaviour should be very straightforward - after including 'import pygame' to .py, please include 'Requires = pygame' to activity.info. The whole dependencies mess in proper distro should be work out by distro-specific installer That'd be a huge amount of work unless we had some standard for naming. We could use the already-existing python egg package format... which already has dep handling and is cross platform. Was that already considered? -of ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] .rpms vs .xos for Activity packaging
On 12.01.2009, at 17:44, l...@faraone.cc wrote: On 1/12/09, Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:43:01PM -0500, l...@faraone.cc wrote: On 1/11/09, Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org 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.info dependency in common/distro-unbinded notation: - Activity's author package code in .xo format with dependency string like 'Requires = pygtk' in activity.info - user downloads .xo and pass it to distro-specific installer; installer translates dependency from distro-unbinded notation to native package name and pass it to package manager; and install activity itself. Something to consider: different distros will have different package naming conventions and versioning. We might want to encorage using the fedora dep conventions and look into how the alien package handles this. You missed my main purpose: activity author should not known about variety of GNU/Linux distros, his behaviour should be very straightforward - after including 'import pygame' to .py, please include 'Requires = pygame' to activity.info. The whole dependencies mess in proper distro should be work out by distro-specific installer That'd be a huge amount of work unless we had some standard for naming. We could use the already-existing python egg package format... which already has dep handling and is cross platform. Was that already considered? This seems to ignore non-Python activities. - Bert - ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] .rpms vs .xos for Activity packaging
-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 alsr...@member.fsf.org wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:43:01PM -0500, l...@faraone.cc wrote: On 1/11/09, Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org 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.info dependency in common/distro-unbinded notation: - Activity's author package code in .xo format with dependency string like 'Requires = pygtk' in activity.info - user downloads .xo and pass it to distro-specific installer; installer translates dependency from distro-unbinded notation to native package name and pass it to package manager; and install activity itself. Something to consider: different distros will have different package naming conventions and versioning. We might want to encorage using the fedora dep conventions and look into how the alien package handles this. You missed my main purpose: activity author should not known about variety of GNU/Linux distros, his behaviour should be very straightforward - after including 'import pygame' to .py, please include 'Requires = pygame' to activity.info. The whole dependencies mess in proper distro should be work out by distro-specific installer That'd be a huge amount of work unless we had some standard for naming. We could use the already-existing python egg package format... which already has dep handling and is cross platform. Was that already considered? I am no expert in Python, but I believe that eggs are currently unsupported (and possibly even discouraged) in Debian (and thus also some, possibly all, its derivatives). I also believe eggs to be specific to Python, and .xo packaging is not. - Jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAklrdhQACgkQn7DbMsAkQLhB6gCfXoqjGTMJtjY7C506WCi0qmHl isMAn2y8xxqX4xGTC9IiybCiOhS1iJY+ =4tbf -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] .rpms vs .xos for Activity packaging
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:44:52AM -0500, l...@faraone.cc wrote: On 1/12/09, Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:43:01PM -0500, l...@faraone.cc wrote: On 1/11/09, Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org 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.info dependency in common/distro-unbinded notation: - Activity's author package code in .xo format with dependency string like 'Requires = pygtk' in activity.info - user downloads .xo and pass it to distro-specific installer; installer translates dependency from distro-unbinded notation to native package name and pass it to package manager; and install activity itself. Something to consider: different distros will have different package naming conventions and versioning. We might want to encorage using the fedora dep conventions and look into how the alien package handles this. You missed my main purpose: activity author should not known about variety of GNU/Linux distros, his behaviour should be very straightforward - after including 'import pygame' to .py, please include 'Requires = pygame' to activity.info. The whole dependencies mess in proper distro should be work out by distro-specific installer That'd be a huge amount of work unless we had some standard for naming. yup, I meant standard naming scheme We could use the already-existing python egg package format... which already has dep handling and is cross platform. Was that already considered? good question (only one but - non-python activities) -- Aleksey ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
