Re: [Sugar-devel] Bundles with binary requirements (Was: The ARM is near)

2009-08-29 Thread Benjamin M. Schwartz
Gary C Martin wrote: > How many ebooks could you distribute (and > store) for the bandwidth (and nand space) taken up by downloading the > required dependancies for Java. A hell of a lot. That's why we need to display prominently exactly how much space each item in the Journal takes, includin

Re: [Sugar-devel] Bundles with binary requirements (Was: The ARM is near)

2009-08-29 Thread Gary C Martin
Hi Aleksey, On 30 Aug 2009, at 01:23, Aleksey Lim wrote: > On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 12:51:22AM +0100, Gary C Martin wrote: >> On 30 Aug 2009, at 00:17, Aleksey Lim wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 05:09:44PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: 0install looks quite promising to me and h

Re: [Sugar-devel] Bundles with binary requirements (Was: The ARM is near)

2009-08-29 Thread Michael Stone
(Regarding 0install): > It is interesting, but fails horribly badly in the case of no, or low > bandwidth Internet. I'm not convinced, for three reasons. First, there is "0share" http://0install.net/0share.html which seems to me to be remarkably similar to our long-stated goal of "horizo

Re: [Sugar-devel] Bundles with binary requirements (Was: The ARM is near)

2009-08-29 Thread Aleksey Lim
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 12:51:22AM +0100, Gary C Martin wrote: > On 30 Aug 2009, at 00:17, Aleksey Lim wrote: > > >On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 05:09:44PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > >>0install looks quite promising to me and > >> > >>http://www.osnews.com/story/16956/Decentralised_Installation_Syste

Re: [Sugar-devel] Bundles with binary requirements (Was: The ARM is near)

2009-08-29 Thread Gary C Martin
On 30 Aug 2009, at 00:17, Aleksey Lim wrote: > On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 05:09:44PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: >> 0install looks quite promising to me and >> >> http://www.osnews.com/story/16956/Decentralised_Installation_Systems >> >> is good reading about the general issues involved. >> >> Has an

Re: [Sugar-devel] Bundles with binary requirements (Was: The ARM is near)

2009-08-29 Thread Aleksey Lim
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 05:09:44PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > 0install looks quite promising to me and > > http://www.osnews.com/story/16956/Decentralised_Installation_Systems > > is good reading about the general issues involved. > > Has anyone here experimented with it? > > Regards, > >

Re: [Sugar-devel] Bundles with binary requirements (Was: The ARM is near)

2009-08-29 Thread Michael Stone
0install looks quite promising to me and http://www.osnews.com/story/16956/Decentralised_Installation_Systems is good reading about the general issues involved. Has anyone here experimented with it? Regards, Michael ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Su

Re: [Sugar-devel] Bundles with binary requirements (Was: The ARM is near)

2009-08-28 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 05:04:32PM +, Aleksey Lim wrote: Purposes for 0install(or so) in comparing with native packages: * one way to install deps in all environments * non-root install * requires reliable internet access at install time - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Inte

Re: [Sugar-devel] Bundles with binary requirements (Was: The ARM is near)

2009-08-28 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 09:55:37PM +0200, Elena of Valhalla wrote: On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: What would "universal" be in the Sugar context? i386 + amd64? i686 + amd64? i386 + i686 + amd64? i386 would work on all of them, even if not optimally, but then True on

Re: [Sugar-devel] Bundles with binary requirements (Was: The ARM is near)

2009-08-28 Thread Elena of Valhalla
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > What would "universal" be in the Sugar context? > i386 + amd64? > i686 + amd64? > i386 + i686 + amd64? i386 would work on all of them, even if not optimally, but then > powerpc + i386 + amd64? > armel + i386 + amd64? > powerpc + armel + i

Re: [Sugar-devel] Bundles with binary requirements (Was: The ARM is near)

2009-08-28 Thread Aleksey Lim
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 04:47:53AM +0100, Gary C Martin wrote: > Hi Benjamin, > > On 28 Aug 2009, at 03:58, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote: > > > Bobby Powers wrote: > >> I think having something like: > >> > >> example.activity > >> |-arch/ > >> |-arch/x86/ > >> |-arch/x86/bin/ > >> |-arch/x86/lib/

Re: [Sugar-devel] Bundles with binary requirements (Was: The ARM is near)

2009-08-28 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
Hi all, Feel free to ignore my comments here - after all I am not doing any of the heavy lifting in this field, I "just" continue to package for Debian from source, independent on what you come up with here... On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 04:47:53AM +0100, Gary C Martin wrote: As a long time Mac

Re: [Sugar-devel] Bundles with binary requirements (Was: The ARM is near)

2009-08-27 Thread Benjamin M. Schwartz
Gary C Martin wrote: > Hi Benjamin, > > On 28 Aug 2009, at 03:58, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote: > >> Bobby Powers wrote: >>> I think having something like: >>> >>> example.activity >>> |-arch/ >>> |-arch/x86/ >>> |-arch/x86/bin/ >>> |-arch/x86/lib/ >>> |-arch/armel/ >>> ... >>> >>> could work. Sug

[Sugar-devel] Bundles with binary requirements (Was: The ARM is near)

2009-08-27 Thread Gary C Martin
Hi Benjamin, On 28 Aug 2009, at 03:58, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote: > Bobby Powers wrote: >> I think having something like: >> >> example.activity >> |-arch/ >> |-arch/x86/ >> |-arch/x86/bin/ >> |-arch/x86/lib/ >> |-arch/armel/ >> ... >> >> could work. Sugar could set an environmental variable AR