Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity packaging

2010-08-08 Thread Aleksey Lim
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 08:05:06PM +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

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity packaging

2010-08-08 Thread Jon Nettleton
But the one of core ideas to not use only regular packaging systems (via PackageKit or directly) is having this, natural and desired, scenario for sugar ecosystem: * there is an activity, * several users might decide to experiment w/ this activity  (i.e. change its code) and share this

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity packaging

2010-08-08 Thread Aleksey Lim
On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 07:18:51AM -0700, Jon Nettleton wrote: But the one of core ideas to not use only regular packaging systems (via PackageKit or directly) is having this, natural and desired, scenario for sugar ecosystem: * there is an activity, * several users might decide to

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity packaging

2010-08-08 Thread Gary Martin
On 8 Aug 2010, at 15:18, Jon Nettleton jon.nettle...@gmail.com wrote: But the one of core ideas to not use only regular packaging systems (via PackageKit or directly) is having this, natural and desired, scenario for sugar ecosystem: * there is an activity, * several users might decide

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity packaging

2010-08-04 Thread pbrobin...@gmail.com
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

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity packaging

2010-07-07 Thread Aleksey Lim
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 01:18:04AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: Bernie wrote: On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 12:02 -0400, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote: I think you are missing an important requirement: installation without elevated permissions. Rainbow has been bit-rotting for the past 2 years

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity packaging

2010-07-07 Thread Michael Stone
Aleksey wrote: On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 01:18:04AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: Bernie wrote: On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 12:02 -0400, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote: I think you are missing an important requirement: installation without elevated permissions. Rainbow has been bit-rotting for the

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity packaging

2010-07-07 Thread C. Scott Ananian
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org wrote: On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 01:18:04AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: Bernie wrote: On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 12:02 -0400, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote: I think you are missing an important requirement: installation without

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity packaging

2010-07-06 Thread Aleksey Lim
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 11:51:00AM -0400, Bernie Innocenti wrote: On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 16:20 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: Sorry about the confusion, these questions were about the move from xo bundles to packages :( Ah! Communication FAIL! :) Ok, I think the requirements for activity

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity packaging

2010-07-06 Thread Bernie Innocenti
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 19:56 +, Aleksey Lim wrote: Just to mention how it could look like on high level http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activity_Team/Zero_Sugar#How_it_works_at_a_glance Will it also remove the need to ship fat bundles, as we do now? I mean, will it produce separate packages

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity packaging

2010-07-06 Thread Aleksey Lim
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 05:59:04PM -0400, Bernie Innocenti wrote: On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 19:56 +, Aleksey Lim wrote: Just to mention how it could look like on high level http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activity_Team/Zero_Sugar#How_it_works_at_a_glance Will it also remove the need to ship